The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take this opportunity to inform the House that I shall be attending a ministerial visit to Jersey on Monday 10 May? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Clinical Trials: Protection of Patients

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031), laid before the House on 1 April, will change the law in relation to the protection of patients and their right to decline to be used in clinical trials.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the regulations impose new legal requirements for the protection of patients in clinical trials of medicines, particularly incapacitated adults and children. Those conducting trials must obtain informed consent from all participants. Patients are provided with detailed information on the nature of the trial and have the right to withdraw at any time. The new statutory requirements are in line with existing good clinical practice in the UK.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware, first, that I am grateful for what he has said and, secondly, that similar emollient assurances and promises of strict controls were made at the time of the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 and that every single one of those has been broken? Will he recall that the practice of using mentally handicapped people for experimentation and research without their permission, as now introduced in Statutory Instrument 2004/1031, was infamously pioneered by Nazi Germany and is abhorrent to all of us, in any circumstances whatever?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by noble Baroness. However, the regulations will help to ensure that the rights of all clinical trial subjects are protected and that the results of trials are reliable. They will produce powers of enforcement, which are lacking at the moment, when things are not satisfactory; and they will provide particular provision of a legal representative for people who are incapacitated.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that, while it is obviously extremely important to protect the rights of patients to consent, there are areas of research that are of grave importance that would not go ahead if we did not find ways in which to get ethical approval for research? For example, we need approval for those who are in intensive care and those who are mentally incapable of giving consent.
	I remind the House of my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Does my noble friend agree that the interests of patients have to be safeguarded in ensuring that clinical trials do go ahead to the benefit both of those participating and future patients?

Lord Warner: My Lords, before responding to my noble friend's question, I wish her and other Members of the House who are participating in this evening's charity event, Race for Life, the very best of wishes—and healthy contributions from all Members of the House.
	I share my noble friend's concerns. That is why it is important that we do not deny people with incapacity the ability to participate in these trials, which will enable us to find cures and treatments that are effective for all people.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, having been some time ago chairman of a medical research ethics committee, my understanding was that all parts of the country and all research were covered by such committees and that patients were protected by them. Has that system been breaking down, so that the Government feel it necessary to legislate?

Lord Warner: My Lords, that system has not broken down. Indeed, it has actually been strengthened under this Government, with more money going in to support local ethical committees. The regulations ensure that we strengthen arrangements for clinical trials across the EU and provide powers of enforcement when there are breaches of the conditions.

Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Joint Select Committee on the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, which I chaired, considered the topic long and hard? We came to the conclusion that research on patients who lack capacity should be conducted, but under the strictest controls and protocols. To put it simply, how do we find a cure for Alzheimer's if we cannot do carefully controlled research on patients with that disease?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is of course absolutely right. That is why we did not in any sense wish to rule out the participation of those with incapacity in clinical trials, but wished to ensure that there would be adequate controls to protect their interests through the regulations.

Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that under the regulations patients who lack mental capacity can be included in clinical trials if consent is given on their behalf by their "legal representative"? The definition of legal representative is extremely wide and includes not only family members and the doctor in charge of the patient's care but also anyone else from the hospital involved. Is not that last category of legal representative a cause for some concern?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there is need for flexibility in these areas. It may not always be possible in certain circumstances to gain access quickly to a patient's relatives. The regulations ensure that no one who is associated with the research and clinical trials can act as a legal representative.

Lord Elton: My Lords, do I understand from that last answer that any other medically qualified member of the staff of a hospital where such a patient is resident is entitled to give consent, regardless of what the rest of the family may feel because they are not there?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the first order of call will be on the relatives of the patients concerned. The other arrangements for a wider group of people who can serve as legal representatives are to ensure that incapacitated patients are not denied the opportunity to participate in these trials because one cannot get quick access to a relative.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his previous responses he did not appear to accept any order of call and that, as drafted, the provision could be seen to be open to objection?

Lord Warner: My Lords, these arrangements are an extremely narrow part of the regulations. They are included in this form in order to ensure that incapacitated people are not denied the opportunity to participate in clinical trials that, on the whole, often provide better treatment as well as the research capability.

Renewable Energy Strategy: Electricity Costs

Lord Tombs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of the likely total cumulative cost to electricity customers, by the end of 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively, of the Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that the target for 2010 and the aspiration for 2020 are both met.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, for the period 1990–2010, the average annual cost of the Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that the targets are met, is estimated to be very approximately £500 million per annum. For the period 1990–2015, the equivalent estimate is £800 million per annum and for the period 1990–2020, it is £1 billion per annum. These figures compare with the current total annual cost of supplying electricity to all consumers in the UK of around £15 billion.
	As with all long-term estimates, it must be appreciated that these are very tentative figures. Key areas of uncertainty include future progress in reducing the cost of renewables and the future rate of growth of electricity demand.

Lord Tombs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. I understand the uncertainties that underlie it. Very roughly, because I have not had the time to do the calculations thoroughly, this amounts to around £12 billion over the period. Is the Minister aware that one could meet the total construction costs, not the subsidy, of about 10 gigawatts of nuclear power for the same sum of money? Was serious consideration given to this as an alternative?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. All the options were reviewed when we modelled this. Of course, if we were to build nuclear power it would have implications on the cost side. Again, a very wide range of figures is being given for the cost of nuclear power, not least because the figures are hypothetical, no nuclear power station having been built in this country since 1995.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I understand the tentative nature of the figures given by the noble Lord though I have seen higher figures quoted. However, is it not clear that, whatever the cost, it is consumers who are going to pay this subsidy? It is not the Treasury. Ought not that figure, whatever it is, to appear on every consumer's bill so that they know exactly how much they are paying towards the cost of the Government's fixation on wind power as a way of solving our carbon problem?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord revealed his starting point on this when he referred to the cost of the Government's position on renewables. Of course, it is the cost difference of getting carbon-free emissions. It is £1 billion in a total of about £15 billion, which is why I gave the other figure. It is an extremely difficult figure to calculate. On the whole, the British public feel that that additional cost per annum is well worth paying to deal with the very difficult problem of climate change.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend speculate about the cost of not meeting our targets for renewables? Is he satisfied that the Government are doing everything in their power and everything that is necessary to maintain their stated position of keeping the nuclear option open?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very happy to give the other figures because the estimates have to be seen in the context of what happens if we do not. Perhaps it is worth quoting the Foresight flood and coastal defences project, which shows that in the most extreme case the cost of flood damage could rise from about £1 billion per year to around £20 billion per year by 2080. These are very large sums, whatever the course of action. It is also worth reminding the House that we currently have liabilities of approximately £50 billion for the civil decommissioning of nuclear facilities. There is no strategy here that is either simple or very low cost.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate the extent to which the savings likely to arise from the Government's recently published energy efficiency policy could offset the costs of the renewable energy strategy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give the figures now but I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with them. Clearly a significant part of them is what can be achieved by energy efficiency savings, which can be a very considerable figure. I shall write to the noble Lord with the figures and put a copy in the Library of the House.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Royal Academy of Engineering that the cost of electricity from renewable sources is more than the cost from every other source of energy, including nuclear, even when the costs of nuclear decommissioning, which the Minister just mentioned, are included?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the Royal Academy of Engineering's figures on this matter. As is the case with all figures, they are very different from everyone else's. Compared with other figures that we have, the academy's figures seem to attribute a very low cost to nuclear and a very high cost to renewables, from which I conclude it is ever more important that we set up the UK energy research centre so that we have reliable figures independently produced and agreed which everyone can use for these debates.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say with some assurance that the renewable energy totals will be met when the Ministry of Defence is still objecting to the erection of wind generators in south-west Scotland, which has arguably some of the best onshore areas for wind power? The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that that was because of learner pilots. Surely pilots of aeroplanes, civil or military, should be capable of manoeuvring around objects that are fixed on the ground.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am beginning to realise what fun I have missed by not taking part in the Energy Bill. From reading the debates on that Bill in Hansard, there appeared to be a great deal of discussion about whether people could manoeuvre yachts around offshore turbines and aeroplanes around turbines onshore. All these issues are being dealt with quite sensibly. We are proceeding on quite a good course to achieve our targets by 2010.

Lord Winston: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if both noble Lords are quick, we can hear from both of them.

Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not enough has yet been done to engage the British public in the issues that are raised with regard to global warming, the use of proper energy, its conservation and so on?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of debate but it is an issue to which more attention should be given in the next few years because we shall have to make some very big decisions. The more that the public are involved and see what all the issues are in terms of cost, energy security and the environment, the better it will be as regards coming to sensible decisions.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the United Kingdom still on course for meeting the 2010 target?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that, of course, depends on a whole series of actions being taken and on the actions of the investment community. However, there is a reasonable chance that we shall meet that target.

Euro 2004 Football Championships

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the security and crowd control arrangements being made for the Euro 2004 football championships in Portugal are expected to be sufficient.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, host arrangements for the Euro 2004 football championships are extensive and the Portuguese Government and police are confident that their security and crowd control arrangements will be effective. The UK Government and other agencies have provided maximum support over an extended period of time and enjoy a close working relationship with the Portuguese authorities.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Without flattering him too much, will he confirm that the Working Group on Football Disorder, which he chairs, has made a real difference to the state of preparedness for the summer's championships compared with what was in place in 2000? Can he confirm that as a result of passing the Football Disorder Act up to 2,500 known hooligans will be prevented travelling to Portugal compared with just 100 four years ago? Does he agree that this time the Football Association has done everything that it possibly can to restrict ticket sales to persons of good character through its own members' clubs, but that it cannot be held responsible for tickets that might be sold over the Internet?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always grateful for support on this issue from wherever it comes. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend for his work on the working group and on other football-related bodies in dealing with football disorder. I confirm that up to 2,500 people will be subject to banning orders as a result of the legislation that we put in place in 2000. I am confident that, given the approach adopted by the FA, all possible steps have been taken to minimise any disorder and unpleasantness which might take place at the championships. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will want to see the championships go off well and will wish England to be successful.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in agreeing that the Football Association has worked constructively to ensure a full police and banning order check on the official allocation of tickets for the first round England games, is the Minister aware that UEFA has sold some 80,000 tickets online to fans with English addresses? What representation did the Government make to dissuade UEFA from direct selling online since it has the potential of driving a coach and horses through crowd segregation and effective policing?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, UEFA has been selling tickets in line with European law. The noble Lord is right that an estimated 80,000 tickets have been sold directly to UK recipients. Those recipients are subject to the same checks that took place regarding those tickets sold through the Football Association. This obviously is a very difficult issue. People are entitled to access ticket sales; otherwise, the marketplace would be fettered. We believe that we have done all that we can to ensure that any potential for disorder is minimised. I congratulate the FA in particular on the way in which it has behaved during the course of discussions and on the actions that it has taken to promote a much more fan-friendly event.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in previous championships certain British newspapers have tried to present what is essentially a sporting contest as a rerun of World War II? Does he think it right and sensible for either him as chairman of the relevant committee or the Minister for Sport to call in the newspaper editors and say that the police and other authorities will have enough to do in making sure that these games are free from terrorism without incitement from the British press?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Some discussions have taken place with sections of the media. They are being very carefully briefed on the way in which problems relating to disorder have been managed. The noble Lord is right to call on the media to act responsibly in reporting what takes place. Let us hope that they focus some of their attention on the very positive approaches that have been adopted, particularly by the fans' organisations, the FSF, the Football Association and the Government to promote a rather different image of the English fan abroad.

Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the excellent work that is being done by the British Council and the organisation, Fans 4 England, in building good relations in Portugal around the 2004 competition? I understand that this involves school visits, mini tournaments, links to children in orphanages in Portugal and many other activities. Arising from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does my noble friend share my hope that the broadcast and print media will give as much attention to these activities as they may give to the brain-dead hooligans, if they get there, whose only objective is violence and the possible ejection of England from the tournament?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the last point that the noble Lord made is a very important one. That threat is present. I share the noble Lord's hope and wish that there will be a much stronger focus on the positive moves and steps that have been taken, as I said, by the FSF, the FA, Fans 4 England and so on, to promote a different image of English football supporters abroad. There will be at least 50,000 of them abroad but I am very taken by the approach of adopting a community and providing support and encouragement to local young people, in Coimbra in particular, to participate and get involved in football and see it as something to enjoy rather than something to be frightened of or worried by.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, broadening the issue slightly and looking at security on an international level, is my noble friend satisfied that there will be adequate sharing of information given that we have many international events coming up in the future months, not least, of course, the Olympics in Athens? The news from there this morning was extremely disquieting.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those departments that have an international context, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, have been working carefully in this field to ensure that steps have been taken to deal with these problems. Yes, while some of the news is depressing, the work that has been undertaken by officials is very encouraging and we should get behind it and support it.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, how long does the banning order last—as long as England's participation or until 4 July?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the banning order regime is complex, but the banning orders that are in place—and there are likely to be some 2,100 more for the duration of the competition—vary in length. However, if the police prevent people travelling abroad, the noble Lord can be assured that that ban will cover the duration of the competition. It is a matter for the police and the courts whether it needs to be longer than that.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the ban stop those subject to it only from travelling to Portugal or can they travel to any other country in the European Union and then gain access to Portugal?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that will depend very much on the nature of the ban that has been imposed.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that printing an individual's name on a ticket and requiring it to be matched to some form of identity could prove useful in making sure that tickets do not reach the wrong hands?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those are exactly the type of practical measures that have been looked at in the past and continue to be under review, but the issuing of tickets is not directly within the Government's gift. It is a matter that we discuss regularly with the Football Association and it is aware that there are varying views. Yes, of course the practical measures that can be taken should be taken.

EU Enlargement: Institutions and Reform

Lord Grenfell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in light of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 member states, they will now press for reform of the Union's institutions as a matter of urgency.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. This is why we want to see early agreement on a constitutional treaty which will make EU institutions more accountable and effective.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Can she say whether documentation setting out the proposed revised drafts of those treaty articles dealing with institutional reform—I stress the word "documentation"—will be made available to Parliament so that it can be scrutinised before the European Council meeting in June?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are placing in the Library of the House copies of the presidency's proposals that were issued last week. I understand and hope that they are being copied and placed there this afternoon. They include provisions on the formation of the Council. We also expect that there will be a wider-ranging discussion on the institutional proposals and, I hope, a further presidency paper in the context of the General Affairs Council on 17 and 18 June. We will make those documents available to Parliament and I hope that they will be available in advance of the Council meeting in June.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, will these reforms also include, for example, reforming the Commission's accounts to a stage where they are acceptable to the auditors?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question, because it is one which would flow from the Commission. In my supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I was concentrating on the papers coming from the presidency. I was referring to the first of those papers which was issued last weekend. The other questions which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, raised concern institutional issues and I hope that papers on those matters will be made available. However, I will consider the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the accounts, as I know that questions about the Commission's auditing are of considerable interest in your Lordships' House. I will try to provide an answer to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that she has been guilty, no doubt inadvertently, of a serious non sequitur in her initial reply, which goes to the nub of the matter? The fact that enlargement of the Community requires some streamlining of its workings does not mean that this particular draft treaty, or anything like it, is acceptable. It contains a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with enlargement but involve a further massive centralisation of the European Union. Frankly, that is unacceptable.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am well aware that many noble Lords opposite find much of the draft treaty unacceptable. In doing so their judgment runs counter to that of your Lordships' own committee, which in its 41st report said that the treaty made plain the intention of the European Union to remain a union of sovereign states and it was clear that the balance of power would,
	"shift from the Commission to member states".
	It also said that the treaty would reform the European Parliament and,
	"make a contribution to democratic accountability".
	The fact is that judgments differ on this draft treaty, as the noble Lord well knows. I suggest to him that those judgments will continue to differ for some considerable time, but we will have a terrific opportunity to debate the matter on 11 May. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be there to make his points.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have enough time to hear from both Benches.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that she was far too kind to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he started talking about "massive centralisation" arising from the convention and the discussions at the intergovernmental conference? Does she not accept that it is quite unacceptable to form that judgment given that he was a member of a government who created the Maastricht Treaty, where the centralising powers were much greater than anything visualised in the Convention and the draft constitution?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is always a good idea to be as kind as possible to the Opposition, who need as much help as they can get on some of these questions. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that his judgment ran counter to the judgment of your Lordships' own committee, which is far more in line with the views held by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson than those of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister further agree that some of the central proposals in the draft constitution would certainly make the European Union work more efficiently? I have in mind the simplification of the voting system, and the idea of streamlining the Commission. Regarding democratic accountability, does she also agree that the power to be given to a proportion of national parliaments to object to European Commission proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity is a long step forward towards recognising the roles of national parliaments as well as the European Parliament?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can agree with much of that and I remind your Lordships that the central basis on which we are now operating the European Union was constructed when there were only six countries in it. There are now 25. Of course the EU can struggle on under the present arrangements, but it would operate far more effectively and with far more accountability if the sorts of proposals inherent in the draft treaty were brought forward. They include issues such as relative voting weights, the number of Commissioners, the chairing of Council meetings and the important point raised by the noble Baroness regarding subsidiarity—where there will be more power coming to national parliaments.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we shall debate these matters ad nauseam in the coming weeks and months? It is important that we should be fully informed, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said. Does she concede that when she quoted the Lords European Union Committee report on the nature of the constitution, she was unintentionally giving us a slightly misguided view? Has it not been made clear that when that report said that powers would be transferred to the member states, it meant that powers would be transferred to the European Council, which consists of Ministers from the member states? That is very different. Ministers are fond of taking that quotation and throwing it around. Should they not be a little more accurate in interpreting that in our future debates?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I did not attempt to interpret the report. I quoted it verbatim, regarding the,
	"shift from the Commission to member states".
	But I am perfectly happy to concede to the noble Lord that the mechanism is, of course, through Ministers, who are themselves accountable to their parliaments. It brings greater powers back to the member states. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the mechanism. If he will be kind enough to agree with the conclusion that the balance shifts from the Commission to the member states, we can input through the mechanism and agree on that point. However, the central point is what the noble Lord has to say about the committee's own decisions. The noble Lord is continuing to argue from a sedentary position, but the fact is that he may find himself in some difficulty over what your Lordships' committee has said. I, for one, feel very happy about it.
	Perhaps I may take up the issue of debating this matter ad nauseam, as the noble Lord puts it. I do not think that we shall be doing that. If he feels like that, he need not debate it ad nauseam. I, for one, shall be very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this matter at any time.

Terrorist Threats: Public Information

Baroness Buscombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to inform the public about recent terrorist threats and how to react in the event of an emergency.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as part of a deliberate strategy by the Home Secretary, an increasing amount of information and advice is being made available to the public. Since November 2002, the Government have made available information on terrorist threats through three websites, four parliamentary updates and regular speeches and publications. General advice and information on preparing for a possible emergency is included on the Home Office terrorism website.
	Advice on actions to take in specific emergencies is provided to the public by a range of organisations and departments, including the police, the Environment Agency in relation to flooding, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on overseas travel, the Department for Transport on UK travel, the fire service and the Department of Health.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was very welcome. However, during the Committee stage of the Civil Contingencies Bill in another place, the Government expressed a clear and repeated intention to withhold information from the public in the belief that knowledge creates fear. Therefore, we welcome this change of stance, which reflects our position that knowledge dispels fear.
	This move is long overdue, but if the Government are really serious about defending our nation against terrorist attacks, why has the passage of the Civil Contingencies Bill—a Bill intended to prepare us for a civil contingency in the case of a civil emergency—been stalled? Indeed, it seems to have sunk without trace. What are the Government afraid of?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are not afraid of anything. The Government's first priority must be public safety, and that must be borne closely in mind in all decisions about public information and warnings. I am not aware that the Civil Contingencies Bill has stalled. We are committed to ensuring that that legislation reaches the statute book because we consider it to be very important and valuable. Our Government brought it forward, and it has been some time since a government legislated on this matter. We take the issues involved in the Bill very seriously indeed.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that his reply placed an over-emphasis on information being given out via websites? We have not yet reached the situation where people have ready access to websites. In fact, those who do not are often the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Will the Minister consider using more simple and straightforward means of providing information, such as advertising in newspapers and public information films on television, rather than placing an over-emphasis on websites? Does he not think that it would be better to spend money on providing basic information in that way rather than directing a large proportion of much-needed resources at an experimental identity card, which will have nothing to do with countering terrorism?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's last point, but I shall put that on one side. However, I think that the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point about sources of information and about where information should be placed. The Government review at all times where they place such information. At some stage, it may well be appropriate to place advertisements in newspapers. It may also be appropriate to produce leaflets and literature, to make other public service broadcasts or to make public information available through radio and television and so on. We keep all those things under review, and we act and take the initiative when it seems to us to be important to do so.
	As to the issue of websites, roughly half the population have access to a website and probably even more have indirect access. The websites that have been set up are very popular. I am told that the www.MI5.gov.uk website had approximately 3 million hits on its first day last Friday. I do not know whether that is a record but it obviously seems to have stimulated a great deal of interest.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us of a certain age in this House have been vaccinated for smallpox one or more times in our lives but that those vaccinations are now out of date? Given that the Government have the vaccines, will the Minister tell us why they are not making vaccination for smallpox available on a voluntary basis? Again, in the event of a terrorist attack using smallpox infections, why will only a pathetically tiny number of doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers have been vaccinated and thus be able to deal with an emergency of that kind?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting issue, and it is a matter that must be taken very carefully into account when completing a risk assessment. Obviously, at present, the view is that the level of risk is such that vaccination has not become as urgent a priority as the noble Lord believes it should be.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, do the Government believe that the great British public are a pretty sensible lot who take a commonsense view about the completely amorphous threat which may be made by anyone to anyone at any time by any means? It seems to me that what the Government can usefully say on a website or elsewhere is hard to conceive.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord always makes a good point and, on this occasion, he is right. We should be very commonsensical in the way in which we deal with such a situation and that is basically the Government's approach.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of the Civil Contingencies Bill. Will the Minister please give me, perhaps in writing, some reassurance that the Bill has not been stalled? Indeed, it left Committee in another place in early February. I remember that during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill we had to stall all the normal practices and procedures in terms of timings in this House because that legislation was felt to have such a high priority. In contrast, we believe that the Civil Contingencies Bill is being treated by the Government as having a very low priority, and we do not understand why that should be. Given, for example, what happened recently in Madrid, we believe that the Bill should be treated as a high-priority issue.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Bill is obviously a high-priority issue. That is why it was brought before another place. The Bill has not stalled; it is proceeding and it will take its place with all the other pieces of legislation. I am sure that it will reach your Lordships' House and the noble Baroness will have the opportunity to discuss and debate it then.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Thornton set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Viscount Chandos to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Central Government and Local Communities

Baroness Thornton: rose to call attention to the role which central government play in supporting local communities; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, several noble Lords have raised with me the open-ended nature of this Motion. I strongly suspect that the wide nature of the debate that we are about to have and the many facets of community support that will be explored will more than justify the breadth of the topic and will prove all the more worth while for that—even if they present my noble friend the Minister with something of a challenge when he comes to reply. I can see experts in local government, rural matters, young offenders, the arts, the business world, the Church, drug abuse, housing and the voluntary sector who will be speaking today, and I am very grateful for the interest that has been shown by noble Lords.
	When this Labour Government were elected in 1997 and re-elected in 2001, an important part of the platform on which they stood was that of providing increasing and appropriate support to communities and neighbourhoods. They wanted to encourage the growth of strong, safe and thriving communities—communities that took responsibility for their own development and for changing and improving the lives of their citizens. That has been the focus of the Government's support at local level.
	I am sure that most people would accept that the Government have three main roles in their support for local communities: promoting social order and safety, investing in individuals and communities so that they can thrive and help themselves, and creating working partnerships so that people can control or influence the change in their own communities.
	I believe that it was recognised in the very early days of community-based programmes that two prerequisites made change viable and possible. First, government at local, regional and national level needed to create and nurture partnerships with a huge range of people and organisations—stakeholders, I suppose, one would call them, although it is not a word that I like. Community leaders, voluntary and community organisations, churches, schools and colleges, small and large business and many of the umbrella organisations that represented those groups needed to be involved. It was recognised that they needed those relationships to find out what people thought the solutions to their problems were and to help to deliver them.
	During that period the Government, particularly civil servants, found themselves round the table with all kinds of people. They needed to learn to listen to what local people, experts and practitioners had to tell them. Sometimes that has worked and sometimes it has not. Sometimes it has brought about radical and unusual support from government to local communities, and sometimes we have found ourselves mired in bureaucracy and red tape.
	Secondly, and just as importantly, to deliver real change would require the Government to change their culture. It would require work, co-operation and collaboration across government departments in a way that simply had not been normal practice, however much the cause might justify it. It might mean budgets shared, targets set across department boundaries and a more holistic approach to certain seemingly intractable problems over a longer period than one term of government could offer, such as dealing with the issue of rough sleepers, or tackling child poverty, or dealing with failing communities.
	Some noble Lords may recall the work of the policy action teams (PAT 1-18 in the first tranche, if I recall correctly) which worked under the then newly created Social Exclusion Unit. They provided both prototypes in the way that they worked, bringing government together with practitioners and experts, and blueprints of the kind of national and local collaboration, mixed with possibly new laws and resources that might be brought to bear on some big issues. I believe that many of the reforms and work carried out since can be traced back to the work of the Social Exclusion Unit.
	There have been some startlingly good initiatives that have made a huge impact in local communities. I believe that Sure Start must be one of the most important examples of the Government investing in a local community for the long term, being flexible, listening to local people and providing the right kind of resource. However, I shall focus on what the Government have been doing to support the fight against anti-social behaviour and what they are doing to support local initiatives to build local communities without the help necessarily of the local authority.
	It was agreed as long ago as 1998 that the Home Office should co-ordinate tackling anti-social behaviour nationally, working closely with the DETR and other government departments. It was also agreed that preventive work should run alongside punitive measures, as prevention is crucial to reducing anti-social behaviour, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods. Investment in prevention can save large enforcement costs later.
	That can be achieved through measures many of which will be familiar to those in your Lordship's House and to those who take an interest in these issues. They are such matters as reducing the risk of anti-social behaviour; for example through lighting in communal areas, entry phones, better housing allocation policies, taking action to deal with tenants, better gathering and sharing of information, co-ordinating preventive services, family support, drug and alcohol services and involving schools and youth services in discouraging anti-social behaviour by young people.
	Over the past six years we have seen legislation and initiatives, targets and resources from the Home Office, the ODPM, the Department of Health and the DfES, focusing on this issue because it is clear that unless central government provide local government and local agencies with the tools and a co-ordinated approach, neither of them can tackle any of the issues on their own. None of that, as they say, is rocket science.
	The borough in London in which I have my London base is Camden, which has fully embraced the anti-social behaviour legislation to deal with individuals who can blight the lives of their neighbours and communities. At the same time they have heavily invested in cleaning up Camden's streets of graffiti and litter, thereby creating environments that are safe and look safe, and which are attractive to people.
	So how is it going? A review of the crime and disorder strategy and the latest crime statistics show that Camden is making significant progress in reducing crime. It is one of the only boroughs in London which is on track to meet its national targets on the reduction of street crime, burglary and vehicle crime this year. The latest statistics for the period April 2003 to February 2004 show a 15 per cent fall in domestic burglary compared with the same period last year; a 10 per cent fall in vehicle crime; a 26 per cent fall in robbery; and a 26 per cent fall in street crime.
	One reason for the success is a community safety partnership, which includes the police, the local authority, the voluntary sector and the fire service. That sets the direction and identifies the key priority areas for a programme of action. There are also partnership weeks, when all partners are brought together to focus on the hot spots and to try new and innovative ways to reduce crime; there is a programme of action in Camden Town, supported by investment in the environment to bring about a dramatic change in that area; there is joint work between the police sector teams, the street population service and street wardens, which is targeting people causing particular problems; and there is shared accommodation in some areas between the police and the local authority. In fact the community policeman in Tufnell Park has a base in my children's school.
	Camden has recently been commended by the Metropolitan Police for its partnership working to improve community safety and has been used as an example of good practice. Recently there was the launch of a pilot scheme called Step Change in Queen's Crescent, where community-based police will not leave their beat except in exceptional circumstances. In other words, they will not be pulled off to look after football matches on Saturdays or for any other reason. Their priority will be to become integrated into the local community that they serve.
	I now turn to my beloved, but sometimes beleaguered, home city of Bradford. I want to talk about community enterprise, creating wealth in communities and keeping it there. The council has not, in recent years, distinguished itself in harnessing and developing community spirit—perhaps a change of regime might do the trick. However, it is significant that during the shameful riots in the Manningham district of Bradford, one building was left untouched—the Carlisle Business Centre. Why was that? It was untouched because it is the home of Action for Business Limited, a development trust founded in 1992 which has gained the trust and respect of local people, of whom over 70 per cent are from ethnic minority communities. With a mixture of funding and government programmes, the centre now offers 89 offices and workshops as well as conference facilities, and it is a community resource as well as a vehicle to reinvigorate the local economy. Community lunches, an employment agency and computer-assisted learning are some of the resources available there.
	With that outfit, the development trust is now a sustainable community resource, no longer dependent on grant aid. Bradford Trident is a New Deal for Communities programme with a difference. Bradford Trident from the outset modelled itself on the development trust model. Vigorous investment in local enterprise, including business advice, wage subsidies for local employment and skills training, has been combined with healthy living schemes, environmental improvements and the demolition of particularly horrible, obsolete council flats. As a development trust, Bradford Trident is concerned not just with quick wins but also with the long term. Therefore, it is investing in land and property, so that when the government funds run out, there will be an asset base and income stream in the service of the community for years to come.
	I am using development trusts—a national network of community enterprises—as an example of how national programmes can and should be used to promote locally grown initiatives. There are thousands of groups and organisations that I could mention; for example, Groundwork, with its millennium awards and support for environmental change, or social firms or family centres run by children's charities.
	Development trusts are community enterprises. As such they are a form of social enterprise, trading for social purpose, based in a community of place or interest. They seek to move beyond the provision of welfare services, by setting up enterprises (including social businesses) which encourage self-help and reduce dependency. They bring the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector to the problems that face communities. Development trusts are helping to create some of the most enterprising communities in the UK where a "can-do" culture is driving change.
	As the examples in Bradford illustrate, investment in enterprise creation can be a means to achieving sustainable community organisations, even in the most disadvantaged areas. Government, local authorities and other public bodies need to play a vital enabling role, such as the transfer of assets of underused buildings and cutting the red tape needed for investment. Recent initiatives, not least the Adventure Capital Fund backed by the Home Office, ODPM, DTI and four of the RDAs—Yorkshire Forward, ENIDA, EEDA, and LDA—have pioneered new forms of investment in community enterprise. More is needed—as always.
	Finally, more effective business support and skills development is required because the conventional small business service does not always meet the specialist assistance needs of social and community enterprises.
	I have spoken at some length about this particular work because I believe it brings together some of the best examples of how appropriate interventions—not particularly resource intensive—and central government support can be used to grow new and optimistic communities, and in a democratic and sustainable way. I am grateful to the Development Trusts Association for responding to my plea for information, and congratulate it on its pioneering work. When I framed this speech it was difficult not to include examples of some of the exciting urban renaissance that is under way—in fact I do not think that I can resist the temptation to mention a few.
	Ask the people of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff and Manchester whether their city centres are not better than they were six years ago. City Centre Safe in Manchester is an innovative partnership initiative between the Greater Manchester Police, Manchester City Council, Manchester transport and business groups. The project involves marshalling taxi ranks, the introduction of safe night buses and night-net and a communication system linking a wide range of services. The project has made a significant impact on the night-time economy in Manchester, making the city a safer place to visit and enjoy and enabling people to get home safely.
	In Sheffield a network of local area panels—in place since 1998—has provided essential support for local regeneration. The joint working with local regeneration boards, development trusts and forums has achieved a better fit between mainstream and community regeneration activity—thus making the best of national support and local investment. There are many more examples we could use today, and I am sure that many noble Lords will.
	I close by saying that I hope and believe that the Government have learned over the past six years that providing support from a national level to a local community has to be done in many ways. It must be done with sensitivity and by listening to people. Legislation, all the different schemes—and if I have a criticism, it is that navigating the neighbourhood renewal site of the ODPM is not a straightforward business; often there are too many schemes and they are too difficult to access—the pilot schemes, the national targets and so on have to be combined together and then added to local knowledge and wisdom. They have to be given time to succeed, and sometimes time to fail, to bring about real change. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on introducing what is a very timely debate because we have local elections coming upon us shortly. On these Benches we believe that central government can best support communities by setting a framework which empowers communities and the individuals that make up those communities; and that such a framework should be underpinned by a coherent philosophy and a set of political beliefs.
	The present Government have set out to help many of the most deprived communities in Britain. Although much has been achieved after years of increasing centralisation, and in some cases wholesale destruction of some communities—here I think particularly of coal mining areas—several recent reports have flagged up a series of failings in some central government inspired and funded projects. Indeed, the noble Baroness touched on some of those. I shall talk a little more on that later.
	I believe that the failures in some circumstances stem from the fact that a clear philosophy and a set of political beliefs do not underpin this Government's actions. There is some evidence for that. Some years ago the parliamentary question that left the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, uncharacteristically lost for words was not about health statistics, ministerial failures or foreign policy; it was a modest request from one of his own side that he should give the House of Commons a brief characterisation of the political philosophy and beliefs that underpin his policies.
	He did not actually take the opportunity; he hastily started talking about health service investment figures. That lack of coherence shows through in the various Acts of Parliament and some of the current Bills which the Government have introduced affecting local and regional government. They are often heralded by claims of giving more power to local councils, but the reality is that they are always hedged around with tight description, particularly in secondary legislation, and with too many new powers for Ministers.
	If there is no underlying framework of belief or philosophy, the direction of policy change becomes unpredictable. I believe that has been the unhappy experience of many Labour voters of this new Labour Government. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that we have a distinct advantage, which we probably do too little to advertise or exploit, although our opposition colleagues would say we are probably a bit sanctimonious. Nevertheless, I shall continue to be slightly sanctimonious.
	Our party is based on a clear set of beliefs. They can be traced back not only to the 19th century when they were systematically articulated by John Stuart Mill, but even further back to the conflict between Crown and Parliament in the 17th century. Fundamental to Liberalism is the belief in the freedom of the individual. That freedom is threatened from many directions: by over-mighty states; by private concentrations of power; by the actions of other individuals; or by circumstances that leave the individual without access to power or opportunity.
	The preoccupation of Liberalism has been the creation of a democratic system of government which can protect individual liberty and whose institutions are themselves restrained from usurping the freedom of the individual.
	Relationships between different tiers of government will always be strained. We have already heard about that. But there needs to be a clear spreading of power among the different tiers where powers are handled at the most appropriate level. In that way we can guard against the maxim that,
	"all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
	The past 50 years have been characterised by what I think I can describe as, the "Whitehall knows best" syndrome of bigger is better. Local government reorganisers have swept away many of our small, community-based councils in the name of efficiency. We have seen more bureaucracy, more central government initiatives, targets, inspections and bidding rounds for various central government programmes. I believe that has led in many areas to greater public alienation from the political process.
	Over the same period, services that have traditionally been run by local government were nationalised or run through government-appointed agencies. In Britain, we witnessed the birth of something that has been described as the "quango state". Today, we see too much financial control at the centre and not enough in lower tiers of government. I think—and I am sure that it will come out in the debate—that across the board everyone recognises that we need to empower local communities if we want to have thriving, vibrant and sustainable communities. Too many of our citizens live in communities where they are excluded, either because of unemployment, low incomes, poor streets, poor housing, high crime environments—a matter referred to by the noble Baroness—bad health and, increasingly, family breakdown.
	The Government have tried to drive through an agenda to tackle some of these problems. Some initiatives have been more successful than others. I say again that where there is a lack of success, I believe it stems from the setting up of too many schemes, which again the noble Baroness referred to, often led by Whitehall or quangos. I feel that there has been a failure to strengthen and support local government structures, including changing the financial structures, where we could deliver most of what we all want to see in our local communities.
	There have been several reports recently about some government schemes, one of them from the National Audit Office on the New Deal for Communities. The press release following its report states:
	"A lack of basic financial and performance reporting data hinders NDC partnerships' ability to demonstrate effective delivery and performance, to monitor their own performance, and to draw comparisons and learn from each other".
	That was said about the New Deal for Communities. If it had been said about local authorities, Ministers would be sending in hit squads to try to deal with them. The report also states:
	"In many cases there are tensions between NDC partnerships and their accountable bodies, usually the local authority".
	The schemes often have poor financial management and spend large amounts of money on administration. That is not a cost-effective way to target regeneration.
	Indeed, the report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003 found that, because the New Deal for Communities is a separate programme to the many other area-based initiatives and local authority regeneration programmes currently running, it overlaps with many other programmes. I probably do not have time to list them all, but some of them are the single regeneration budget, health action zones, education action zones, employment action zones, Excellence in Cities, Sure Start, European Union-funded area-based initiatives, and I could go on.
	Yet another report has been produced, this time by the Economic and Social Research Council. It looked specifically at urban regeneration, working in conjunction with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It highlighted some of the problems that can be created by the partnership approach. On the whole, people think that the partnership approach is a good way to proceed, but we must be aware of the problems. The report states:
	"Bringing together the private and voluntary sectors, local community groups and various central and local government agencies in urban regeneration partnerships . . . can sometimes work well. However, it can also raise a host of issues about trust, leadership, costs, and having too many unproductive meetings".
	The study was led by Professor Michael Ball of the University of Reading and explored the difficulties of co-operation between such diverse groups. One conclusion was that if we are to use such a model, which is often neither a market nor state project, there should be much more testing before schemes are implemented.
	We do not doubt the Government's good intentions in supporting communities. Indeed, we support many of their aims and welcome their successes. Looking at the number of Labour Members on the speakers list, I suspect that we will hear a lot more about some of the Government's successes. But there is quite a bit of evidence, on which I have merely touched, that shows that more thorough evaluation of schemes and a clearer philosophy is needed to guide policies if we are to be and to create what we would describe—and what I have even heard the Government describe—as a liberal democracy that empowers individuals to create the thriving, vibrant and sustainable communities we all want.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on giving us the opportunity to debate the role of central government in local communities. Living in a region—the north-west of England and especially on Merseyside—that continues to require funds for regeneration after two decades, I welcome the debate. Partnership between central government and local communities has taken place in Merseyside for more than 20 years, especially since the riots of 1981. I shall compare then and now.
	In the early 1980s, local community leaders from all backgrounds—local councillors, voluntary bodies, churches and residents—were invited to discuss with central government civil servants and Ministers the needs of Liverpool. The regeneration of Toxteth and its surrounding area of Liverpool 8 began, and led to a vast improvement in housing, roads, public areas and new, comprehensive health centres and clinics. I am pleased to see in his place the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, the former Bishop of Liverpool who played such a significant role during that time in the history of Liverpool.
	One of the barriers met—it continues to exist—is that between local government and local people, especially those from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds and communities. An example is the choosing of sites for community centres. The Chinese community in Liverpool was allocated—given, because it could not pay for it—a site that was a former depot for waste disposal vehicles and some distance from the recognised Chinatown.
	What has happened since then? Since 1997, local strategic partnerships have been set up involving people with a background in health, housing, the environment, the local community, security and safety. Having been a member of the local strategic partnership in Birkenhead and Wirral, I have mixed feelings about the usefulness of such partnerships. In principle, LSPs are very good, but one difficulty, which has been mentioned, is the influence of government offices and regeneration agencies and other quangos. The priorities of local residents are modified by those bodies because of difficulties of or priorities in funding.
	So the Government need to maintain a balance between support for local communities and giving the impression of prescribing from a distance a programme of action that is expected to correct social problems in the short term. That balance requires consultation with local people not once but continuously, but if it is not handled sensitively, communities can become disappointed and disillusioned with the Government.
	One example of great success is the Sure Start programme. We have a number of Sure Start programmes on the Wirral in five disadvantaged areas of that part of the world. Sure Start was set up to tackle health inequalities among deprived and disadvantaged communities. Nurses and community workers have been employed to visit families with newborn babies and young children to provide advice and long-term support for up to three years, or even longer. Young and single mothers are given support to breast-feed their babies and care for them and their family. Groups of mothers are also encouraged to meet to support one another and improve their skills.
	One disadvantage of the Sure Start programme is the size of population needed to qualify for the programme. As a result, small neighbourhoods on the opposite side of the road from the Sure Start programme and also containing disadvantaged people can miss out on that support. Alternative funding has been found from the neighbourhood renewal programme, together with money from the primary care trust to provide similar support for young families with the freedom to include fathers.
	The main worry about support from central government is their time limit of three to five years. If funding runs out before local government can generate funds to carry on effective schemes, good quality work will be cut off and needy people left without support to help them improve themselves. Perhaps the Minister might consider that problem in his reply.
	I should also like to highlight on a broader canvas the fact that other parts of government—the National Health Service—have also been listening to local people. That has led to a shifting of the focus of health services to primary healthcare. By improving access to health-related information through the telephone service NHS Direct and walk-in centres, more choice has been provided, which local people have welcomed and used. Availability of appointments to see general practitioners about acute illnesses have improved so much that almost all patients can be seen within 48 hours. I declare that I am a non-executive director of Birkenhead and Wallasey NHS Primary Care Trust.
	One unexpected outcome of that improvement in services has been the identification of people who appear to bypass their GP and do not make appointments by telephone but go to the emergency department of their local hospital. Another has been requests by patients with chronic disorders for long-term appointments. But improvement in primary healthcare has not necessarily been welcomed by some hospitals, which realise that their funding will not increase as rapidly as it did in previous decades.
	There is the prospect of intermediate care provided by GPs reducing the workload of some hospital departments. Central government have offered patients a choice of treatment for coronary heart disease beyond their local NHS hospitals, including private hospitals and ones on mainland Europe. Currently, eye operations for cataracts are available in mobile operating suites, staffed by South African doctors and nurses. All those innovations provided by central government have been welcomed and appreciated by local patients.
	I wish to focus on issues directly related to a diverse population, particularly support provided by race equality councils, which appear to be diminishing in the north-west. That support, which helps ethnic minority communities engage with majority communities in their locality, is vital, especially in towns that experience inter-racial conflict—Oldham, Burnley and Blackburn. Councils may help new migrants to adjust to settling in other areas, too. Funding of race equality councils comes from the Commission for Racial Equality, which is reducing the number of councils that it supports. Services provided by RECs are not available from other sources such as citizens advice bureaux.
	Central government should support local choice in housing. It appears that local tenants no longer have the option to remain with their local council as landlord. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for initiating the debate. It is, after all, at local level that the fabric of our civil society is maintained and developed. As the Home Secretary has written in the report of the Home Office's Civil Renewal Unit:
	"Building the capacity of both individuals and groups within communities is central to the process of civil renewal, enabling local people to develop their own solutions to the issues which most affect them".
	It is because the Churches value and seek to offer a critique of that agenda that we have established the Churches Commission on the Urban Life and Faith as a successor to the landmark report Faith in the City of 20 years ago. I want to speak about two specific dimensions of that enabling role of government, critical among the many and varied avenues of the work of supporting local communities.
	First, I want to talk about government support for faith communities in local civil renewal. Having served with other faith leaders as a member of the Home Office steering group on the engagement of government with faith communities in England, I welcomed its report published last February entitled Working Together. That document was part of a significant trend in national policy initiatives developed, particularly since 9/11. It highlights the extensive role of faith communities in delivering services and local capacity building. It cites the finding of the 2001 census that 76.8 per cent of the population identify a religious affiliation, and estimates, as we can from other sources, that 30 per cent of workers in the voluntary sector label themselves as churchgoers. Working Together puts it like this:
	"Faith community organizations are gateways to access the tremendous reserves of energy and commitment of their members, which can be of great importance to the development of civil society".
	The evidence of that is all around us in Leicester, where I come from. There some 450 faith-based community projects play their part in civil society. They are located at the heart of their communities, can reach the hard-to-reach and most disadvantaged groups, offer extraordinary value for money and are trusted by the local community. As Working Together described, such organisations are,
	"informed by . . . values such as compassion, inclusivity, empathy and trust".
	For those reasons, in Leicester we have established a faiths regeneration network and a full-time project officer to build on the social role of the sector. It is a sector uniquely placed, alongside other agencies, to provide local neighbourhoods with a wide range of services: work with young people, counselling, health and employment advice, drugs prevention initiatives, family support and services for the elderly, to name but a few. Individual faith-led projects in Leicester serve on average 300 individuals a week each, at very low cost. In Leicester alone the value of the voluntary effort expended through the faith sector is estimated at well over £5 million a year.
	Therefore, the question is: how does the Government's clear policy of support for the civil role of faith communities match up with public support and local outcomes on the ground? Despite the Government's enthusiasm for faith-led social action, many local authorities and other public agencies still seem at times to display a distrust of faith involvement. Access to funding can be barred by over-complex funding criteria, and faith groups are sometimes discriminated against in assessing applications. Furthermore, access to local strategic partnerships is sometimes limited and variable from city to city. For that reason, it is crucial that the Home Office Faith Communities Unit ensures that the rhetoric is translated into action. As the Local Government Association commented recently:
	"The government's recognition of the faith communities' significant neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion role has yet to be reflected fully in practice".
	I look forward to the fuller realisation of such support for that vital work in the days ahead.
	I wish to touch briefly on another area of central government support for local communities. Much has been achieved in the complex programme of community-led regeneration, to which reference has already been made. But there remains a long way to go in many of our cities, if we are to learn how to do that well. In my city, as in many others, it is the Churches that provide the local leadership required by programmes such as the New Deal. The vision behind those programmes is the empowerment of the community, but the danger that we see around us is that the Government show signs at times of feeling that delivery is not coming quickly enough.
	There are consequences of that political impatience. First, the rhetoric begins to change from community-led regeneration to community-involved regeneration, a subtle shift but a highly significant change of emphasis. It may represent a move away from a deep-seated belief that local communities, given the right support, can and will make wise choices about the future of their cities.
	Secondly, the pressures grow for target-driven regeneration, with a constant stream of performance-driven initiatives which, while worthy in themselves, go no way towards measuring less tangible but vital outcomes such as growth in trust, self-esteem and self-confidence, without which sustainable community regeneration cannot be achieved.
	Thirdly, the whole concept of capacity-building must be seen much more as a two-way process. Of course, the capacity of the local community needs to be constantly built; handling large sums of money and engaging with the complex world of consultants and specialists are demanding. These programmes also demonstrate the need to work hard to build the capacity of officials, local government offices, consultants, architects and accountants, in order that they know more sensitively how to listen carefully and creatively to local voices and to enter imaginatively worlds that are often alien to them. The key issue here, as elsewhere in the role of government in supporting local communities, has to do with speed of delivery. Changing the culture, the aspirations, the self-esteem and the vision of local communities in our neediest areas cannot be done overnight. Sustained, committed support from local government in the long term is absolutely essential.
	The message that I hope that the Government will receive from this debate, as pressures to deliver intensify, is this: do not lose your nerve; continue to enable regeneration to be genuinely community-led, and learn to be patient enough to enable sustainable change to be achieved. Only that way will our most vulnerable, deprived communities be renewed and recreated for a generation to come.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on initiating this debate. I will speak on two areas, which are both close to my heart. Both illustrate the crucial role of government in enabling local communities to serve the needs of their citizens. First, I will use the urban regeneration scheme in Corby to show exactly how this partnership can change the lives of the people of that town. Secondly, I hope to outline the many government initiatives that are helping sport to take its rightful place in society.
	I will start with Corby. Our urban regeneration scheme has been modelled exactly on the Government's White Paper and on Lord Rodgers's task force. It is a blueprint for renewal and a case study of value. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been the driving force behind this project—a radical scheme based totally on partnership, vision and systematic consultation, all aimed at creating a vibrant, sustainable town. The whole of Corby is covered by the project. Our scheme was the first to be announced by John Prescott, and we are proud of that unique status. That was some three years ago. No one told Corby what it wanted; Corby told us. A town that was devastated in the 1980s by the closure of the steelworks had shown in those intervening years that it was not prepared to fade away, and its record spoke for itself.
	What was clearly apparent was that the growth anticipated in the 1980s had not happened, and that the crucial mass of the town was lacking. Size does matter if a community is to enjoy all the amenities that it rightly expects. Today, even more than before, commercial interests can only be sustained by an appropriate population, both in size and profile. Schools, shops, sporting and cultural facilities all left much to be desired. Of course, we bore—and still do—the label of being the largest town in Europe without a passenger railway station. That was the scenario before Catalyst Corby came into being. Regeneration can only be accomplished by powerful partnerships and focussed goals, and we now have them in Corby. We have a dynamic board with government representation via the East Midlands Development Agency, English Partnerships, Corby Borough Council, Northamptonshire County Council, the Chamber of Commerce, perhaps most crucially welded together by the local representation from community and business interests, which all drive this project forward.
	Our vision is clear; a new town centre, containing a full range of retail, leisure, community and residential uses of which people will be proud; a fully integrated public and private transport system, extensive new housing, which will provide a wide housing choice and attract new residents; employment sites meeting modern requirements, which will attract modern new industries. Underpinning these objectives is the determination to create a town that is sustainable and vibrant; a town of 50,000 to become 100,000, and a town that is diverse and successful. To achieve this, we will require investment of almost £4 billion. Much of this will be privately funded, but we depend on government agencies to kick start our project. They have been remarkable, in the quality of their support, their professional advice and the significant financial support that we have already received in bringing us to the stage we are at today.
	Chairing that board has been a privilege. I have seen at first hand the value of total co-operation with central and local government, working hand in hand with the certainty that we will deliver a town that its residents and businesses deserve and rightly demand.
	If there is a sting in the tail of my speech today, it must be this: please, Minister, do not allow anyone to take their eye off our prize project. We cannot succeed without continuous and continuing government help and expertise. Do not let us find ourselves in difficult competition with other growth areas. We, as a regeneration project, can form the core and help to provide the solution to the housing needs that the Government have rightly identified, but we are unique, and we should be recognised as such. I hope that our success will encourage even more partnership schemes up and down the country. It is a formula that we have found dynamic and creative. The Government are certainly to be congratulated in instigating it.
	Step change is a phrase apparently beloved by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, so perhaps I may borrow it to move on to another area where government action is crucial to success. Sport is high on their agenda. It needs to be. We inherited a sporting landscape decimated by the Tories. Sport in schools—smashed; sport in the communities—smashed; all by a Government that sent their children to public schools, where sport continues to thrive, while crippling the schools to which the rest of us send our children. Thankfully, that is in the past. Our Government see the value of sport, to stave off ill health, particularly obesity and heart disease, and to draw youngsters into sporting activities that can stay with them for the whole of their lives. Sport provides social cohesion and inclusiveness, not forgetting that sport is also wonderful fun and enjoyable.
	Let us look at this Government's record to see how they have set about supporting local communities. I do not need to tell noble Lords that money talks. This Government have invested more than £3 billion of government and lottery money directly into sport. Much has been targeted at school sport, in the form of new facilities, setting up and running extra-curricular activities and a wide range of coaching. The New Opportunities Fund and Sport England have played leading roles in this area, and are to be applauded. In respect of Sport England, I will perhaps be the first to offer a welcome to Patrick Carter who, as chair of Sport England, has recently been announced as a new life Peer. It will be wonderful to have him fighting for sport and doubtless arguing for the Government to do even more.
	More money—this time from the Treasury, with the Chancellor's blessing and endorsement—means that community amateur sports clubs, at last freed from the shackles of crippling rates and tax, are able to concentrate on opening their doors and welcoming in their local communities. Even more money is to be invested in our stars of the future, elite squads with funding to enable full-time commitment to their chosen sport in their quest for excellence. They are our future heroes who will inspire the next generation of sportsmen and women. I could go on, but I see that the stopwatch is gathering pace.
	Perhaps I may indulge myself with a plea for one specific issue to be looked at urgently. I believe that it would help enormously the widest possible range of clubs, including hockey, cricket, rugby union, rugby league, athletics and tennis clubs. The issue to which I refer is planning, which is always a blight for progressives. It is now a blight for existing sports clubs. I am referring to small, local clubs that are often in urban areas. They are constantly refused planning permission to upgrade and improve their facilities, such as floodlighting, playing surfaces and indoor facilities, and for better club and social facilities. I could quote case study after case study where planning has been refused.
	In this day and age, local clubs, which are therefore so valuable, must be able to offer year-round facilities. With the wholehearted support of the CCPR, all the governing bodies of sport, including Sport England and the LTA, I urge a revisit of our planning guidelines in order to come to the rescue of those clubs, many of which are now under threat. The syndrome of decline of facilities means that there is a loss of members and eventual extinction—the point at which the property developers move in. Of course, local residents must be protected against gross intrusion, but the balance between residents and clubs is now out of balance.
	Perhaps I may finish by repeating a case study that was quoted by none other than our Minister with responsibility for sport, Richard Caborn. After enormous hard work, a school in his constituency upgraded its facilities and became a joint project for the school and community—the perfect formula. Imagine therefore their dismay on being granted, on the one hand, permission to floodlight the facilities, while, on the other hand, being told that the lights had to go out at 6.30 p.m.
	My congratulations on all that has been achieved in sport. Please let us pledge ourselves to doing even more in the future.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for initiating this debate. It is a very important debate, which marks completely the departure of the Labour Government from what was the "meism" of the previous Tory administrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and John Major, and, in particular, getting away from the idea that there was no such thing as community. It is vitally important that, having created this new approach, we ensure that it is carried out. It is a sustainable community. It is a top priority for this Government.
	An awful lot of money is involved because roughly £22 billion will be spent. But it is a new approach. The Government are not only talking about how we will build and what we will build; what is more important is that they are talking about a community in the round. They are not just talking about housing, but they are linking it to jobs, to the booming economy, to public services and to improving the environment. This is not just about developing jobs and services, it is about having a good environment for people to live in, to enjoy, to have green spaces, to revitalise the parks and to look again at developing the community forest. It is important that we do not just have a one-step approach—for example, housing—but that we look at the issue in the round.
	It is very important that the Government do not only talk about the growth areas in London, the south-east and the south Midlands, but that they also develop a strategy for the north. In the north, they are going to tackle housing demands, boost jobs and boost investment in the three northern regions. That is very important indeed. But to achieve that, we need an engine to carry it out. The regional development agencies will play a key role. I mention that because the party opposite, if and when it comes back to power, intends to abolish the RDAs. Yet, the RDAs are the key to carrying that out.
	Before I turn to that, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to indulge myself as chairman of Warrington Wolves. My noble friend Lady Billingham talked about the community and the part that sport plays. We all know that sport is an essential element for many people. My noble friend is sad because Leeds United have temporarily lost their position, but I think that that is only temporary.
	I mention Warrington Wolves because last night, in the national sport industry awards—I would not have been able to say that until last night—they won the Best Sport in the Community Award, after competing against national companies, such as McDonalds, the Bank of Scotland, the Daily Telegraph, and even small organisations such as Wimbledon AFC and the Bradford Bulls. But they came out on top—although I am biased—deservedly so because of the amount of time that they spend in providing for the community. They especially provide for schoolchildren who do not particularly want to go to school—they want to play truant and are not interested in lessons—and children who are bullied. When children are brought to our new stadium, it is amazing to see how they develop because our computer programmes are geared to make it interesting for them.
	They meet the stars—their local heroes—that they see on the rugby field. The interest that they develop is amazing. I entirely agree with my noble friend about the importance that sport plays. It plays a key role for those kiddies. We receive a number of letters from headteachers who say how pleased they are with what we are doing. I have gone into a little detail about this because I think that it is important. But this could not happen, nor would it happen, if it was not for the people carrying it out; namely, the young people at the club—Sean Mellor and Debbie Blackburn—and Neil Kelly from the local authority. It is the working of the club and the local authority in the community that has enabled us to win that award.
	I turn now to the role that the Regional Development Agency will play if the economies of the north are to be developed. The Government have proposed nine pathfinder areas, four of which are in the north-west. It is very important for east Lancashire, which is an area that I represented in Parliament before I represented Warrington. No one was more bothered than myself when we saw the troubles that occurred in Burnley that could have spread further into east Lancashire. There was, first, the decline of major industries, particularly textiles, and, secondly, the abandonment of many homes, plus the clash of racial elements that occurred in that area.
	I do not think that a lot needs to be said about the need to develop areas in both Manchester and Salford. Merseyside was referred to in an excellent speech that outlined the difficulties that are faced in Merseyside. However, the optimism for the future displayed by the noble Lord gives us hope, but that is part of being a pathfinder. Of course, Oldham and Rochdale have similar problems to those that occurred in east Lancashire.
	The NWDA is involved in all of those areas. It is involved in the north-west, east Manchester and Liverpool. It is equally involved in the west lakes regeneration. People think of the Lake District, but they do not think of the west side or going to Barrow, Whitehaven and Workington, and the beautiful adjoining countryside. That area also needs help, which is why the work of the RDA is so important. The RDA is a member of the North West Housing Board. It has already allocated £516 million to be spent in the next two years. It supports the priorities that are set out in the regional housing strategy.
	Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister, when he set out the progress report, entitled, Making It Happen The Northern Way, charged the northern RDAs to lead on the preparations and proposals on bringing about the northern growth corridor. The RDAs will lead in developing important local economies; they will support activities for the provision and creation of sites, ensure that brownfield sites are available in accordance with the plan and bring them forward to meet demand; they will support the development of countryside parks and forests; and they will support the development of the skills agenda. We will be unable to carry out these programmes unless we have a skilled workforce to bring them about. The RDAs are also charged with forging business links and bringing in business support.
	All of these activities offer hope, particularly for the region in which I live, and it is absolutely essential that we develop them. Without the Regional Development Agency we would lack the engine to carry us forward to achieve our goal.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Thornton for introducing this important debate.
	The Government have placed urban renaissance at the heart of their policies for regeneration, social inclusion and sustainability. Their support for these policies has been provided by better targeted programmes and resources, and clear strategic frameworks. Not least, the Government's support for these policies has been provided by unparalleled sustained growth and low inflation in the economy, which has offered stability and an incentive to investment.
	The £22 billion sustainable communities plan of action launched by the Government last year is already making a difference to people's lives. It is not only, of course, a matter of providing more money from central government; as many speakers have already said, local communities must be genuinely engaged in consultation and in decision making. We need to redevelop in many parts of our society a sense of civic pride and a sense that people can take charge of their own destiny.
	The business community, too, is part of the partnership for regeneration and renaissance. Private sector involvement, investment and enterprise are critical to successful regeneration. In a city such as mine, Leeds, there is no way that public resources can possibly meet more than a fraction of what is needed for regeneration. If there is one thing missing in the contributions so far, it is a recognition of the vital role that the private sector and private investment has to play. It is as important as social partnerships.
	The requirement by the Government that local councils and their local strategic partnerships must produce a 10 to 15 year community strategy for their areas brings these strands together. A local strategic partnership in Leeds—the Leeds Initiative—has been in place since 1990 and has played a vital role in bringing continued growth and success to the city. Leeds is a major financial business services centre but has strength in diversity across a range of industry and commerce. In recent months, Leeds has received a string of accolades: Britain's best city for business; best place in Britain to live; visitor city of the year; the favourite UK university destination; and, not least, top city for night clubs, which is very important to the city's economy.
	But, despite this success, the city council and its Leeds Initiative strategic partners recognise that major problems remain for regeneration, social inclusion and sustainability. There remain unacceptable degrees of inequality in unemployment, job opportunities, housing standards, education and skills achievement, health and crime. Successive governments—not only the present one—have struggled to deal with the paradox, to square the circle, of such prosperity in cities and, right next to them, enormous inequalities. These issues in Leeds are squarely addressed in its community strategy, Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020, recently published by the Leeds Initiative following widespread consultation and the involvement of the community.
	Support from and partnership with central government is crucial in producing solutions to deeply entrenched problems. I have time to touch on only two examples of such action in Leeds. The Sure Start programmes have been mentioned by a number of speakers. In Leeds there are eight such programmes, bringing together a range of initiatives offering early learning, childcare and family support services to young children and to families. The leading players in these partnerships are not principally the council; they involve family service units, the Children's Society, a primary care trust, community health, a NHS trust and an independent group. More than 5,000 people have benefited to date.
	Sure Start has been a great success. It has helped children access childcare and early education; helped families engage with supportive services; helped access training and jobs; provided debt counselling; and aided healthier eating. As I understand it, the Government's new children's centre programme will be the vehicle to take forward the Sure Start programmes. Leeds has an ambitious programme for 19 children's centres in wards with the highest levels of disadvantage in the city and, indeed, some of the highest in the country. I hope that these successful programmes will be taken forward.
	I turn now to the role of regional development agencies. Government support from the centre is delivered not only through local councils but through a range of agencies, and I should like to say a few words about the role of the RDAs. In my region—Yorkshire Forward—the Government have correctly identified the need for regional development agencies to develop strong regional strategies, priorities and policies. Economically stronger regions are needed to take the pressure off the overheated south-east of England as well as to solve many of their own problems. The recent initiative of the Deputy Prime Minister and the regional development agencies of Yorkshire, the north-east and the north-west to start the process of building on the strengths of northern England in the northern way is to be welcomed.
	Yorkshire is not only a region of major cities— although there are five of those—but also has a wealth of smaller urban and market townships which form an important part of the character and vitality of the region. Yorkshire Forward has used part of the grant from central government to support these smaller townships in developing local strategic partnerships committed to a vision and practical plan of action to take forward a renaissance in those parts of the region.
	A second example of regeneration and sustainable action by Yorkshire Forward is to be found on the Holderness coast, where coastal erosion threatens the future of the caravan parks that are an important part of the local economy in that coastal area of the region. Yorkshire Forward is working in partnership with the East Riding Council, the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency and local communities to develop a plan of action. Over time, it is intended to move caravan developments some 200 to 500 metres inland, so ensuring a 50-year or longer life span for them. At the same time it is intended to implement infrastructure changes to improve and support caravan developments.
	It would be impractical and vastly expensive to try to stop coastal erosion at Holderness. In fact, the erosion at Holderness provides much of the sand for beaches in Cleethorpes. I am told that if we stop the erosion, within two years Cleethorpes would lose most of its beaches. It also helps to recharge sediment at Spurn Point sandbanks, which support large amounts of wildlife. This is a far cry from the issues of regeneration in our big cities, but it is all part of supporting local communities to ensure regeneration and sustainability.
	The Government play an important role in supporting local communities through clear strategic priorities, backed up with funding and partnership building. This is true for local communities, whether in our big cities such as Leeds, our smaller urban centres such as Barnsley or Wakefield, or our rural communities such as the Holderness coast. I hope that the Government not only remain in office but stay steady on this course of support for regeneration.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to concentrate my remarks mainly on the support given by the Government to the local communities in the town of Burnley. I declare an interest in Burnley—an emotional interest that came about due to the difficulties that Burnley experienced when serious disturbances erupted in the town almost three years ago.
	Following the disturbances, I was invited to lead the task force that the local authority put together to inquire into the causes of the unrest and subsequent violence and to make recommendations that might help to avoid a recurrence of what had happened over three very sad days in the history of a proud town and its very proud people.
	The report of the task force contained more than 80 recommendations, many of which required assistance from central government. Time does not allow me to mention all the areas of concern that were identified. Suffice it to say that many of the problems that needed to be addressed by central government were in a sense quite predictable, given that Burnley, like many other areas in the north-west and other parts of the country, shared an inheritance of decades of underinvestment that had led to many economic and community problems. There were feelings of social exclusion and there was high unemployment and bad housing—a large number of unoccupied and derelict houses in some cases surrounded people who had invested their life's work in property that was, to all intents and purposes, worth just a fraction of what they had paid for it.
	Some of the residents were trapped—they had no chance of moving, no chance of selling and moving on, and the value of their property was at rock bottom. I shall always remember looking at the boards outside some of those houses, especially up in the Daneshouse area, which carried the legend, "Best offer so far £1,200". Yes, my Lords, £1,200.
	In my introduction to the summary of the main task force report that was entitled, Burnley Speaks—Who Listens, I said:
	"Nobody can predict if Government at a local, regional or national level will act on the findings and recommendations contained in the report. If, however, the clear warning signs about the levels of deprivation, the lack of effective communication with the people of the town and the disillusionment felt by many young people in Burnley are ignored, then our time will have been wasted and an opportunity for real change and progress will have been lost".
	I am happy to inform your Lordships that central government responded, and they responded quickly and positively.
	Among other initiatives, the Government responded quickly to the call for a strategic partnership to be set up, with the help of the local authority, the regional development agency and others. This partnership involved all sectors of the community, such as businesses, local authorities and other public bodies which are responsible for making sure that the local recommendations of the report would be followed up.
	The partnership approach is essential. It would be a serious mistake if central government sought to dictate everything from Whitehall; any drift towards direction rather than a partnership approach must be avoided.
	The assistance given to local communities in the various programmes for neighbourhood renewal and regeneration could take up most of this debate. They were much needed, much welcomed, and I, for one, am pleased that they are under way. I feel that the people of Burnley and surrounding areas in the north-west have been listened to. An illustration of what is happening at the point of helping people is the Market Renewal Pathfinder programme, known as Elevate East Lancashire. The programme is designed to pilot ways of addressing low demand in the housing market in nine areas of the north and midlands. The Government have allocated £0.5 billion over the current spending review period for this programme.
	In the discussions that took place when the programme was at the consultation stage, it was expected that the bureaucracy involved would be "light touch". I have to say to the Minister that there is a feeling among some of the people charged with implementing the programme that there is strong central government control over the policy direction of the pathfinders. That may require some adjustment.
	I accept that it is right for central government to set targets and outcomes; all Governments like to know what they are getting for the people's money and set national planning frameworks in various areas. I respectfully say to my noble friend that this is fine at national level but it is wrong to expect all national agendas to be relevant to all communities. They are not. Access to housing may be the dominant housing issue nationally, but it certainly is not in Burnley.
	Should we be viewing housing in places such as Burnley, with small terraced housing designed in the 19th century, as appropriate to the needs of the 21st century? Neighbourhood renewal must be more than the numbers of housing units; it must take into account the changing needs of families.
	I would not want my comments to be misinterpreted. In my view, the Government have responded to the need to take a fresh look at strategic planning and have given much needed hope to many in Burnley and other places. Working with the communities, through the local authority, much progress has been made.
	It is important to recognise more clearly the legitimacy of local government in exercising civic leadership. Most councils have a very clear understanding of the needs of their areas and are certainly viewed as being responsible for leadership in a crisis. This was the case with the immediate consequences of the Burnley 2001 disturbances. Central government can and should be confident that local councils would act responsibly and provide the necessary leadership at times of crisis.
	During the time I spent in Burnley and since, I have formed a personal strong view, shared by Burnley council, that the structure of local government, currently under review in the north-west, is very important in helping local communities. I ask the Minister to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to look favourably on proposals for unitary local government that can provide clear, easily communicated, access to council services, also enabling far more effective cross-service and partnership delivery on the ground to local communities.
	I would like to touch briefly on two other issues that come from my involvement with the people of Burnley. First, I give a warm welcome to the Government's recognition of the need to involve the faith sector in helping communities. The assistance received from the faith communities was extremely valuable as the town tackled the aftermath of the disturbances. I echo the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester about the role played by the faith community. I will long remember the Bishop of Burnley bringing together the Churches and the mosques in Burnley to discuss the disturbances.
	Secondly, I refer to a recent initiative by the community safety partnership in Burnley. I hope that the Government will examine what has gone on with a view to encouraging other local authorities to consider it. Last week it was my privilege, together with television presenter Mr Nick Ross, to launch Burnley's community safety network.
	Together with Burnley Borough Council, the company, Community Communications Network, along with Strategic Partnership Television, introduced a partnership project to use the latest broadband technology to convey information on screens sited across Burnley town centre and outlying locations. When it comes to improving safety, disseminating important information, appeals in the case of identifying criminals and those whose behaviour is anti-social, the potential is enormous. The system can be updated at 10 minutes' notice, which means that it could be used to help locate missing persons. It has already, in another area, found a missing child by getting the message on to screens in the various strategic sites.
	People can receive information in places such as cafes, burger bars, hospital waiting rooms, the local bus station and other strategically chosen sites. There is also a facility for a hotline link to the statutory bodies such as the police, fire and ambulance services.
	It was suggested by Nick Ross at last week's launch that valuable advice could be conveyed over the system about fire prevention and the need for preventive action to avoid the many unnecessary deaths caused by fires in the home.
	I make this point because one of the things that struck me when I first went to Burnley was fear. People were afraid of walking on the streets; they were afraid in certain parts of the town. I think that the communication system will do a lot to reduce some of the fears that people have.
	Finally, I thank the Government for the way in which they have started to tackle the problems caused by the decades of neglect. It is important that central government should link to communities through the right means—legitimate and properly resourced councils. Learning from the Burnley experience, where they do become directly involved with local communities, they should not promise what cannot be delivered.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on providing the occasion for some really wonderful speeches this afternoon. They ranged from the rather sobering observations of my noble friend Lord Clarke to the barnstorming performance of my noble friend Lady Billingham. If her debating style is any reflection of her sporting prowess, it indicates that her tennis style is probably a vicious serve followed by a very sharp volley.
	I intend to take up only a small part of the generous allocation of time. I am aware that there are several equally important contributions still to come, but I wanted briefly to address the matter of central government support for the arts and specifically for theatre, and how important this has been and continues to be to the health and wellbeing of local communities.
	Before doing so, I must declare an interest as a former executive director of the National Theatre and a board member of the Almeida Theatre and of Welsh National Opera. I am also a trustee of the Roundhouse where, thanks in part to significant funds from government sources, restoration work has begun today to bring this beautiful building back into use in ways that will benefit not only the community in Camden—where the Roundhouse is located, and which has already been extensively mentioned by my noble friend Lady Thornton—but the whole of London.
	I have spent most of my working life in the theatre, specifically in the subsidised sector, and I remember with no pleasure the difficulties faced by my industry in the 1980s and early 1990s when it appeared that central government—with honourable individual exceptions—neither understood nor was interested in understanding the value of the arts, whether nationally or locally, in building and sustaining communities. Those were dark days and a great deal of damage was done.
	In 1997, when the present Government were elected, the arts were in bad need of serious investment. Theatre in particular was in a precarious state throughout the country, but like everyone else we had to wait while Prudence got her act together. In 2000, she came up trumps. The Arts Council secured an extra £100 million of government funding for the arts. In 2001, £25 million of that new money was allocated to theatre, bringing Arts Council England's annual investment in theatre to £100 million—a 72 per cent uplift and the largest ever funding increase to the sector.
	Tomorrow, the Arts Council of England will publish research which shows that this injection of funds has had:
	"a major economic and artistic impact on theatre in England".
	As part of the research, three local theatres have been looked at closely and their local economic impact evaluated. I am afraid that, since the findings are embargoed until tomorrow, I cannot share with your Lordships any of the detailed information that they contain. However, I can say without giving too much away that they reveal beneficial effects both directly, in the employment of local staff and use of local suppliers, for example, and indirectly on local economies where there is a thriving theatre—and there are far more of them now than there were 10 years ago.
	Theatres help to sustain jobs, generate additional economic activity and act as forces for economic and social regeneration. Just as importantly they, along with other arts organisations, play a role in building civic pride and underpinning community identity and values. I will not detain the House by listing the many examples that I could supply to these effects. Above all, the arts—and theatre in particular, being my special interest—provide enjoyment and enrich our lives. I believe that this Government have understood the crucial importance of valuing the arts both nationally and locally and have made a real commitment to their beliefs by putting new money behind them. That is one of the many achievements of which they can be proud. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can assure the House that this fine record will be sustained.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, although I entirely endorse the thrust of her remarks and the focus of this debate, would she welcome, as I do, the words of the Secretary of State with responsibility for the arts who has given the strongest support in a recent speech about the importance of valuing the arts not only for their external impact on communities but for themselves?

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I tried to touch on that when I talked about enjoyment and enrichment. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that, coming from where I come from, my commitment is entirely to art for its own sake, whatever form it is in. However, it is also true that, where art is delivered and created and is excellent, it has many other benefits, which we should also value.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Thornton has secured this timely and important debate and I congratulate her on her dynamic opening. I have already learnt a great deal from other noble Lords and I shall no doubt learn more as the afternoon goes on. I am very pleased to hear that the north is in full swing and that sport and the theatre are also being encompassed in this debate.
	My own contribution is not jolly. It relates to how government policy has contributed to improvements for drug users in communities. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, a special health authority set up by the Government in 2001. I will refer to some of our work and to the work of the Centre for Ethnicity and Health supported by the Department of Health. I believe that this will provide examples of qualities other noble Lords have mentioned—sensitivity, empowerment and partnership working with evaluation.
	There have been deliberate attempts to push decision making and action down to community level. I shall refer to a couple of examples. Most recently, the Children Bill now going through your Lordships' House emphasises the need for local partnerships, as does the consultation White Paper on public health.
	I now turn specifically to the issue of drugs. We all know that drugs can devastate individuals, families and communities. The updated drugs strategy in 2002 promised more resources, more support for parents, carers and families, the expansion of trade and services, including in the criminal justice system, better targeting of communities with the greatest need, strengthening of workforce capacity and improved services in communities affected by crack cocaine use. Funding for treating drug misusers will have risen by 44 per cent between 2002 and 2005.
	The National Treatment Agency, which I chair, was set up to double the number of people in treatment from 100,000 in 1998 to 200,000 in 2008. It also set targets for reducing waiting times for treatment, improving effectiveness by retaining people in treatment, improving staffing levels, improving performance information, involving users and carers and having attention to the diverse needs of black and ethnic minorities, women and young people. A template for local drug action teams to develop treatment systems has been established. It will be evident that this ambitious agenda is only possible through delivery at community level.
	The National Treatment Agency works through a network of regional teams based at government offices throughout England and there is close liaison with other services. One of our key functions is to help drug action teams—there are 149 all working in communities—to set plans and to monitor those plans. I visit those regularly and I see signs of great improvement to local drug treatment systems. More people are entering treatment, waiting times are going down and more staff are entering the service. As one worker said to me recently:
	"It is a good time to be working in the drug treatment field; there is more money around and the National Treatment Agency has encouraged better engagement in communities and a more rigorous approach".
	Surely, that is testimony of how national policy translates effectively into local practice.
	The evidence has been endorsed by a recent independent stakeholders' audit of treatment agencies and drug action teams, which includes users and carers. It indicates that both the quality and quantity of drugs treatment has improved over the past two years thanks to central initiatives.
	I will now briefly describe a research initiative introduced by the Department of Health and carried out by the Centre for Ethnicity and Health at the University of Central Lancashire under the leadership of Professor Kamlesh Patel from Bradford. The aim of the research is to establish the needs of black and minority ethnic groups in communities long recognised as neglected.
	Community groups could apply for involvement in the research and 47 projects were approved. Two hundred and four people from the community projects were trained by the University of Central Lancashire to engage with communities to assess needs from which its future action could stem. Those recruited were male and female, from different age groups, and ranged from those with no formal qualifications to those with PhDs.
	The successful engagement with communities also demanded matching of researchers to particular groups with particular languages, ethnicity and cultures. The project worked across local structures and identified deficiencies in services for black and minority ethnic groups; for example, in relation to language, to cultural difficulties, the involvement of women and so on. Importantly, it empowered the communities involved to work cohesively to solve their own problems. The community groups and the agencies developed greater understanding and insights into how they could work together more effectively. At an individual level, many of those trained went on to secure employment in the health and social care field. Others went on to higher education. Many spoke of personal growth and increased confidence.
	Community groups spoke of how the project had enabled them to raise their profile, seek funding, recruit volunteers, network with other groups and use new skills. One of the most significant outcomes of the project was the recruitment of more people from black and minority ethnic groups into health and social care and the drugs field. This is exciting work and is expanding and continuing with further government funding. Two reports are available which I am happy to share with noble Lords who might be interested.
	Would the Minister agree that the setting up of strong central systems with a regional brief can serve communities at a local level? The work of the National Treatment Agency and the community engagement model I have described demonstrate how not only funding but partnerships and sympathetic approaches at local and national level can give rise to local initiatives and can be a powerful force to change.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on initiating the debate. I want to concentrate my remarks on the rural areas and the support into rural communities. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire, a director of Dairy Farmers of Britain, a chairman of the Cheshire branch of the Country Land and Business Association and a board member of the Rural Recovery Board in Cheshire.
	Agriculture underpins the rural economy. Your Lordships' House does not need reminding of the crisis agriculture has faced in recent times. The interdependence of agriculture and the wider rural economy was highlighted during the foot and mouth epidemic.
	Yesterday, I attended a conference to launch the strategy document of the English Food and Farming Partnership, an industry-wide body drawn together and facilitated by Defra to take forward the conclusions of the Curry commission on the future of agriculture. For the first time, government are championing collaborative and co-operative action between farmers and the food chain to increase the strategic options facing the farming community as it comes to terms with the changes due to begin next year in the reform of the subsidy system of the common agricultural policy.
	With the budget of £1 million split 50 per cent to government and 50 per cent to industry partners, the EFFP will promote best practice and joined-up delivery. For example, when retailers start an initiative to raise the price of milk to pass back higher returns to producers, it should be a simple step for hospitals to support and widen the initiative by agreeing higher prices for their suppliers.
	Collaborative action also necessitates a review of the competition laws and the legislative and fiscal framework. As agricultural barriers to trade internationally are reduced, we must ensure that enterprise and innovation are not hampered by a comparative UK disadvantage. Would my noble friend the Minister agree to look at the provisions of the Capra Volstead Act which applies in the United States whereby one organisation can control 100 per cent of market supply to see how this could apply in the UK? Agriculture is at an exciting threshold of change.
	Central government, through its Kyoto obligations on climate change, can alter the balance of opportunities on renewable energy sources. I refer here to biofuels where, once again, agriculture could "dig for victory". Rural areas regard the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas production as non-negotiable, given the potential long-term damage to the rural economy from climate change. Central government's support must take account of local communities' desire for technology choice in delivering national Kyoto targets. In particular, one medium-sized CHP biomass plant involves far less landscape impact and spreads the benefits of alternative non-food jobs and incomes far more widely than the equivalent output from onshore wind turbines. Would the Minister agree that biomass production could be encouraged to provide a credible alternative? Would he also agree that the use of energy in new development be given a locus in planning policy? Local planning authorities could be encouraged to ensure that new development addresses realistically biomass, CHP, solar and other technologies in order to reduce the requirement for widespread onshore wind turbines.
	Following the tumultuous events of the foot and mouth epidemic, central government facilitated the regional development agencies to regenerate rural communities and much activity is focused on regional tourism and market towns. In Cheshire, we are now in year three of the seven-year programme investing £12 million in entrepreneurial advertising. The West Midlands is also undertaking a similar programme, Enterprise Works.
	Rural areas must also be enabled to compete effectively with their urban neighbours. This means they require the same access to technology and modern communications. There is a recognition by central government that broadband is vital to rural areas and they are committed to making broadband available throughout the UK by the end of 2005. The Government are spending £1 billion in trying to get the public sector bodies to connect to broadband. In recognition of this, central government needs to make it easier, through incentives to business, to piggyback into the infrastructure. Rural areas need to know what is happening in relation to this and through seeing the success of connecting greater areas, thereby be encouraged towards greater take-up.
	Tremendous strides have been made towards the economic regeneration that is vital if communities are to thrive. There is still more that can be achieved. I commend the policies currently being undertaken by this Government.

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I wonder whether when my noble friend Lady Thornton tabled this topic for debate she expected such a wide-ranging discussion. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hoyle on the success of Warrington Wolves on their community activities. I am only relieved that they are not as successful on the pitch, which is why I shall be attending the Rugby League Cup Final with Wigan rather than he with Warrington.
	I begin by declaring my interest as the leader of Wigan local authority. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I am a committed localist and a strong advocate of supporting local communities through local government. It is essential that local government works in partnership with local communities, local and other agencies and central government. We all use the word "partnership". It is easy to use but difficult to achieve because it means that everyone has to give up a little. But the result is success and we need to learn that.
	I want to celebrate the fact that there are local variations. We are not a unitary state and people are different in different parts of the country. Local and central government have a shared objective in improving public services to hard-pressed local communities and local authorities are key in achieving that for three reasons. First, they are accountable to local people. Their accountability is partly through the ballot box. The mind is sharpened by the approach of 10 June—or in my case perhaps 26 May when, as your Lordships agreed to a postal ballot for the North West, the ballot papers will be issued. Accountability is more than through the ballot box. It means that we must be available to our local communities throughout the year and we must ensure that we can work in partnership.
	The second reason is that local government is committed to its local area and understands their needs. Councillors must live in the area. They are part of those communities and understand what local areas need.
	Thirdly, local government can take a holistic and strategic approach to tackling local problems. My noble friend Lady Massey talked about drugs. Locally, there are so many different facets to the drugs problem. It affects health—my noble friend's particular concern—crime and anti-social behaviour and family stability. Locally, only the local authority can pull all of those issues together. As the leader of a local authority I have always believed that local government has a duty to do what we are supposed to be doing—to deliver as well as we can the services for which we have direct responsibilities.
	I have to acknowledge the Government's contribution to improving the relationship with local authorities. As I was elected to local government in 1978, I experienced the period which began in 1979 of the Thatcher and Major governments. I know what it was like then and what their attitudes were to local government, particularly to Labour local government.
	I should like to touch on two issues on which I think the Government are doing an excellent job. The first is the measurement of local authority's performance, which is being done through the independent Audit Commission. A comprehensive performance assessment has shown that, in the first round, more than 50 per cent of local authorities were in the "excellent" or "good" categories. That result may have surprised some, but it did not surprise those of us who are well versed in local authorities.
	The Government have gone on to provide support for local authorities in the "weak" and "poor" categories. I have read the typical remarks of the leader of the Conservatives. On the one hand, he says that they will abolish the CPA; on the other, he was bragging about how many of his authorities were in the "excellent" category.
	In performance measurement and the Innovations Forum—I should remind Members that I am the joint chair of that body with Nick Raynsford, the local government Minister—the Government have developed a much more mature and measured relationship with excellent councils. I have spent many hours in this House discussing the problems of bed blocking and how we can get round it. Through the Innovations Forum, local authorities, local health partners and the Department of Health are working on systems that will reduce the need to admit older people to hospital in the first place. That can only be good, not only in terms of saving money but in terms of the experience of older people.
	From my local experience I should also like to highlight the Government's support for local authority housing through arm's length housing management companies. Despite their being a Government of spin—not that I would accuse my noble friend the Minister of being a spinner—they have not made enough of this success. My local authority was in one of the first tranches of ALMOs. We received initial investment of £58 million. That was recently followed by further investment of £79 million and has been topped up by local funding. It has enabled new investment in all of our 26,000 council houses, providing security and fencing and improvements such as new kitchens and bathrooms, better insulation and major structural repairs to roofs and so on. We will achieve the Government's decency standards two years ahead of the Government's deadline.
	As one might expect, the result of that has been improved tenant satisfaction. Satisfaction levels are now over 90 per cent, and it is 97 per cent in the areas covered by some contractors. There has also been increased demand for council housing, which is good news for us. The improved estates have reaped economic benefits. We have partnering arrangements with contractors who will take on and train local people so that they can get jobs. It is excellent news.
	The Government have ensured that the programme works partly by allowing only good quality housing services to become ALMOs. They have done that by ensuring that two-star authorities are involved and by ensuring that the money allocated is used effectively. It has been a challenge to do that within the short time available, but we are on target to spend our first allocation. We are going to bring housing in Wigan up to 21st century standards, and the Government should take much of the credit for it.
	The Government have not marched forward consistently in supporting local communities and councils; in fact, sometimes they have marched in reverse. That is partly due to the fact that not all parts of the Government have understood the need to let go and that everything cannot be managed from the centre. However, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not need any lessons in consistency from the party opposite—which in local government can promise contradictory things to different streets; indeed, sometimes it can promise them to different ends of the same street.
	The future of local government lies in the hands of the local public service agreements. My authority has been part of round one of the agreements, which have been successful because the targets have matched both local and national requirements and stretch local authority performance with welcome financial incentives. Much has been done since the Government came to office to help deprived communities. Much more needs to be done. Central government, local government and local communities need to work together. That is the way forward. I think that the Government are on the right lines.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this debate. I am particularly grateful because this is one debate in which I feel that I need not speak to the House on race. I was wondering how I would fare in such a debate, so I decided to begin with a little history about where we were, and to end with an issue on which I feel we have done much and been successful. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, when one speaks so late in a debate one has to think of new points to raise.
	As I understand it, a unitary system of English local government was suggested as far back as 1969 by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which identified that strategic authorities were fragmented and responsibilities unequally divided between counties and boroughs. But it was not until the early 1990s that this idea was put into practice by the then government.
	In 1995 there was a two-tier system of local government in which a few regional councils exercised strategic functions and many more district councils provided housing and more local services. That was the case in Scotland, Wales and England outside major urban areas. There was also a third, very local tier of parish/community government dealing with minor tax-raising powers and a narrow range of statutory/non-statutory functions. After 1996, that system was replaced by single-tier all-purpose authorities, the objectives of which were to improve costs and community identities.
	In Scotland and Wales the single-tier authorities seemingly reflected the party political advantage in areas, rather than considering their size or natural boundaries. In England, the two-tier system was replaced by a "packet of allsorts", according to P. Waddington, in 1995. Under that system some counties kept the two-tier system but within reduced county areas. Dorset was in that category. Some counties created urban unitary authorities that split from pre-existing counties, which became small "hybrid" counties. By 1998, a total of 46 unitary authorities had been created in England, leaving 21 "new" counties. At that point it was decided to set up the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission's role was to promote change by identifying best practice and drawing attention to inadequacies; not by questioning individual policies of local authorities, but by reviewing their approach.
	The reorganisation of local government had many shortfalls. Despite the Government's clear attempts to support the changes in local government by overseeing the local authorities, the reorganisation caused some problems. Noble Lords may recall that senior local government officials argued that the change to unitary single-tier authorities should have been preceded by a review of local government. That was not so, and Davis reported on that in 1997. He pointed out that an,
	"extraordinary feature was the way in which the whole process was founded on the unitary concept but without any attempt to articulate a rationale".
	When the reform was first introduced, it was greeted with some hostility by local government, as if central government were trying to take power away from local authorities—especially if they were run by the Opposition. Therefore, the unitary principle was gradually undermined by local authorities trying to defend their interests against neighbouring authorities, seeking hostile takeovers or mergers.
	Some main problems identified with the new system included the size of the new authorities, and the creation of many smaller authorities. None the less, the changes took place. There was also disruption and diversion of time and resources, which impacted on staff at all levels. Organisational, funding and service disruption was caused to the work of local voluntary and independent providers. The many new unitary councils had necessarily smaller budgets, leading to loss of economies of scale, less choice for clients and reduction in the level of central support services. However, smaller and more local authorities were also seen as good because they were potentially more accessible, leading to better knowledge of the area.
	I gave that history so that I could talk a little bit about the reorganisation of local government and how beneficial it was to health authorities, in that smaller units, especially in cities, were able to reflect more closely the specific needs of certain areas. The relationship between social services and health authorities was given a fresh impetus, giving hope for potential improvement throughout.
	However, there were still some problems in the relations between health authorities and local government, because they were complicated when the health authorities had to relate to three or more new authorities instead of the previous one. Duplication was a serious problem, and one health authority was heard to say that it had three times the amount of work to do. Nevertheless, the reorganisation of local government had a lot of potential and most health authorities felt that that had to be realised. It is important for me to say here that that potential has now matured and the full benefits of the reorganisation are now being realised.
	The view held by councillors and senior staff is that the changes in personnel in key management positions in social services, with posts left unfilled for lengthy periods, resulted in stalling arrangements and a slow pace of collaboration with partner agencies. However, from April 1993, major changes were introduced by the NHS and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. That gave health and local authorities the main responsibilities for arrangements providing care in the community, with the local authorities taking the lead.
	I mention that because, no sooner was that accepted than the snags became apparent. When the new Government came in, we were able to look again at how we could reorganise without reorganising. The first and fundamental requirement of change to local community care was that there had to be understanding of change at every level. Local authorities could not make superficial changes, believing that businesses could continue much the same as before. To prevent any feeling of threat from the changes, information had to be continuously provided to staff, users and carers, and a gradual approach to change had to be managed.
	Parents and children commented that the council was developing strategies for public consultation and were drawing in representatives from every area. They felt that that was good. Young people were generally positive about the support that they received from staff. The communication grew between social workers, hospitals and all those in higher positions. The policy changes now involve systems and processes for collecting and analysing data better to inform planning and monitoring arrangements. On balance, central government's role has been to develop a more defined, less intrusive and generally much more productive system. I believe that we are seeing the results now in both social services and the National Health Service.
	I said that I was trying to inform myself of the history; I hope that I have not bored your Lordships.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing this important debate. I wish to declare my interest as president of the Football Foundation, which, as noble Lords will know, does great work within local communities.
	Notwithstanding the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, I must say that the foundation is a true working partnership between government and football. That is to say, its partners are the Football Association and the Premier League, each of which gives identical amounts of money and, by so doing, forges a relationship that is unique, with an aim to put an end to the barriers that hitherto have prevailed and which have left many on the periphery of the game of soccer.
	However, within the context of this debate, the role of central government is identical to the aims of the foundation. Although football, especially at the grassroots, is the main recipient of the millions of pounds that the foundation has pumped into the game of football, it is by no means directed at football alone. However, the foundation recognises that if it is to make full use of football's power as the gateway and the driver to multi-sport provision, it must open its doors to all members of all communities, regardless of ability, gender or ethnicity. In that way, it meets its aims.
	With £52.5 million available to the communities every year, the foundation is therefore reaching out to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. I shall give a few examples of the foundation's work within communities. A grant from the foundation to Myton school in Warwickshire has enabled it to have a floodlit, state-of-the-art artificial turf pitch. The foundation has helped a community scheme in Liverpool for disabled football players on Merseyside. In Hull, Dads Against Drugs has received £95,000 from the foundation; that body has been most effective in combating drug abuse among youngsters there.
	From hundreds of new grass roots facilities, to social inclusion projects, crime reduction programmes, anti-obesity and healthy lifestyle schemes and education initiatives, the foundation is using the game to make a lasting impact within communities. Many people, for reasons such as poverty or simply the lack of opportunity, have not been afforded the same chances to play football or other sports that millions of us take for granted. The foundation is determined to break down the barriers and to bring opportunities to play football within the reach of everyone.
	In less than four years, 750 projects worth £200 million have been supported. So good is football's ability to attract inward investment, it in essence means that for every £1 invested by government into the foundation, a further £5 is delivered into sport in our communities. In my view, there is no better example of how government can support local communities than by entering into partnerships with sport. The Football Foundation is showing the way.
	I know that negotiations on the future arrangements of the foundation are ongoing. After what has been an incredible start, I look forward to many more years of the Government working in partnership with football and to their matching contributions helping other communities to deliver so many different aspects of the Government's agenda. Perhaps one of the most important schemes is the Positive Futures programme, a scheme aimed at offering young people a new start, which is a tailor-made grassroots programme diverting youngsters away from crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour. Sixty-eight per cent of the work carried out is based on football. Following the initial eight towns and cities, another 37 new projects have been added, making a total of £3 million from the foundation and £15 million from the Home Office.
	To date, over 7,000 youngsters have been helped by these schemes. Speaking at the Arsenal football ground at the expansion of the latest scheme, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said:
	"This is 7,000 young people away from the streets and getting their lives on the right track".
	The foundation has quickly become not only the best good news story in sport in recent times but also one of the great sporting achievements by any government and we should all be proud of it.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness has set us a very difficult task: what to select to mention from such a large canvas. But I, too, would like to thank her, while grumbling slightly at the difficulty of it.
	There might be a temptation for someone whose background is so rooted in local politics to make a "get your tanks off our local lawns" speech, but I do not want to be negative. However, I follow my noble friend Lady Maddock who referred to a framework that I think, so far as concerns central government, should be minimalist. Noble Lords can decide whether that is a point of political philosophy or Feng Shui. One must define the terms. The closer to the ground, the easier it is to understand what makes up any given community because the boundaries blur. We are all members of a number of communities, not just geographic ones. The community of those who follow a particular soap opera is perhaps not relevant to this debate, but I wrote down that the community of those who follow a particular football team certainly is, because of the social connections, the sense of cohesion and so on that it engenders. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that I have never understood Rugby League. I support Manchester City, which is often a cue for a chorus of "somebody's got to".
	It seems to me that a major role for central government is to set the tone. I wondered whether the noble Baroness selected the debate because it coincides so neatly with the 25th anniversary of the accession of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. There has been a lot in the media about her style and her effect on a generation of "Thatcher's Children", a syndrome that I recognise. Whether or not one loves her, one must accept that she had an impact. By extension, central government has a responsibility. I recognise that this is a bit tangential but I shall extend the point from central government to Parliament itself. We could do far more to open ourselves up and make it apparent to members of all communities that what happens in this building is not irrelevant and is not something that happens in a parallel universe.
	Less tangentially, we need to be aware of who delivers on behalf of central government. Politicians are the least of it to most people. Most people's contact with government at every level is with officials or, to use the more derogatory term, bureaucrats. It does not help confidence if officials are plainly lacking in practical experience. The chief executive of a very substantial local authority recently told me that an official from the ODPM said, "What's it like working in local government?". That was someone who was administering local government programmes. In response, in part, to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, on CPAs, one of the problems is that sometimes quite inexperienced people cost local authorities a lot of money when they go in and are no better, and sometimes a great deal worse, than the local officials they are assessing. Perhaps one partial solution to this would be secondment between the sectors: local government, quangos and business. Secondment would have to be seen not to be a disqualification for promotion. I have heard that it is not always seen as a good thing.
	I have often said in this Chamber that I support the community leadership role of local government. Points that I have often made about local government also apply to the third sector, voluntary organisations, to which I pay tribute. They also need to be supported and the support needs to be to the extent that they are free to make mistakes. I am very conscious that the knock-on effect of problems with local authority funding has led to increased reliance on the voluntary sector. To give a single example, I do not know where we would be without the Citizens Advice Bureaux. Increasingly, I hear of problems in voluntary organisations with funding from central government, particularly how long it takes to get decisions from central government which is providing funding. One effect of that is on the staff who work in the organisations. Older workers become used to the uncertainty—though I do not suppose it does their blood pressure a lot of good. Younger ones feel very threatened and vulnerable. The mix of central government and charitable funding is not always easy. Donors tend to think that if central government are involved then it is not for them; they do not need to help out. Of course, everyone is more interested in funding projects than in funding core activities and maintenance. I suppose that that is human nature but it is a problem. Concentrating on capital and ignoring the revenue needs of existing and new projects is not the way to go.
	In the London Assembly, of which I am a member, we have done a certain amount of work on regeneration. In 2002, we looked at how the regeneration industry was working. I suppose that we might have had our prejudices confirmed but we were very impressed by the strength of feeling that came from those in the community who were involved in projects and who came to give evidence. Among the points that they made, which were reflected in our conclusions, was that:
	"Community involvement, through continuous dialogue and engagement, is central to successful regeneration, ensuring . . . local knowledge of an area . . . maintaining long-term commitments to regeneration proposals, sometimes through long and disruptive building phases, helping to establish . . . long-term viability . . . after the funding is finished and the regeneration agencies have gone. Communities need to be supported to become involved in their own regeneration".
	That was in 2002. In 2003, a further look at the regeneration scene led us to say that:
	"Ongoing reporting and monitoring . . . creates additional administrative demands and considerable duplication of work".
	At the same time one needs to know where the money goes and in this area there is very little co-ordinated reporting that enables one to assess what is best practice. We also commended the commissioning approach; in other words, not competitive bidding where a lot of resources can be applied.
	In the last moment or so in which I have to speak, rather than following the right reverend Prelate on capacity building, as I had wanted to do, I shall quote from a report which I received today from the London Churches Group for Social Action, which states:
	"There was general agreement that the move over recent decades to increase power at the centre with funding and targets set centrally has encouraged local people to abdicate responsibility and reduced the scope for local stewardship and creativity".
	That is a very interesting observation. The report continues:
	"The Group . . . were not convinced that creating more and different local bodies . . . is the best and most effective way of achieving more local involvement . . . one just sees the same people on each body wearing different hats".
	I could talk at length on the Treasury's role but the clock is against me. I refer to the different innovative funding structures that the Treasury might allow to enable infrastructure funding, to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. Can the Minister tell us what has happened to Committee MISC 22, which I understand was set up to undertake a search for innovative funding mechanisms? That might be a question too far for today. I imagine that the letters stand for miscellaneous committee, not Ministers In Secret Conclave.
	I agree wholeheartedly with what was said about the plethora of programmes and schemes. Number is not the same as quality. I end on a further note of agreement. I, too, dislike the term "stakeholders", not least because every individual in every community has a stake.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing what has been a fairly diffuse debate, if I may say so. I shall not accuse it of being well orchestrated in that every aspect was covered, but certainly we have covered a lot of ground in the past couple of hours.
	I think that it must be taken as a given fact that all governments believe that they provide strategies, policies and resources to help and support local communities, however they are defined, but most local communities believe that they do nothing of the sort and that they provide insufficient resources and impose burdens on individual taxpayers and too much centralised control. Undoubtedly the truth lies somewhere in between.
	The debate this afternoon has sought to dispel such a view and concentrate largely on the Government's successes. That was not entirely surprising as most of the speakers—probably unusually—were from the Government Benches, with the noble exceptions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who bravely put their heads above the parapet in this not quite unruly, but unusual, mob of speakers. The debate has not particularly demonstrated a different concept that any government have, or have had, regarding their effect on local communities.
	I digress a little as one or two noble Lords attacked the record of the previous Conservative government. That is now fading into memory. I am surprised that noble Lords cannot speak of incidents that are a little more up-to-date. I did not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said about telling people in one street one thing and people in another street another. I was quite dismayed by the assault of the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on sport. It is not often that I try to redress balances but I must remind noble Lords opposite that between the early 1990s and 1997 practically every local education authority in this country was run by the Labour Party. Practically every local education authority had a policy of no competition either in sport or in anything else.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that is absolute fact. Practically every local education authority was agin sport. That cannot be laid at the door of the Conservative Party. I again remind noble Lords opposite that those local education authorities were by and large Labour controlled.
	I also remind the House—I am sure that I shall do so without the Minister expiring entirely—that the Conservative Party was the first party under Michael Heseltine to start on regeneration projects. One of those projects took place in Liverpool, where the first stones were laid in the regeneration of that city. That was a remarkable regeneration. I am very fond of the north. I know the cities in the north quite well. I am delighted that noble Lords opposite feel that they must expostulate at what I am saying but I can vouch for its truth.
	We have spent much time in Parliament over the past month debating various pieces of legislation which it is opined will encourage voters to vote, particularly in local and European elections. I am sure that this debate has no connection with that. However, the outcome of those votes will probably not, by and large, be a commentary on either Europe or local authorities, but on the Government and their actions and policies—in short, on the centre. We may learn again that voter apathy sets in when the electorate feels that it has no means of affecting the direction of government, or when it has no relevance to it.
	So, should we in this debate today have extolled the virtues of the centre, as, indeed, many have, or should we have looked even more closely at how our communities—cities, rural or urban areas, towns and villages—can help themselves and others? Should we not be looking at how little central government should need to do, rather than how much, and how it should provide more competence to local authorities to do what is needed and to bring projects closer to the ground?
	Should we not be learning that the more the Government lay down the blueprint, the less room there is for local decision, for example, in education, housing development, sustainable communities, and the less likely the initiative is to be successful if the local community is not truly involved?
	Let us start from the inescapable fact that local government is a creature of central government—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, and I, with our local government experience, would both be the first to admit that that is so—and that local government has to work within increasingly prescriptive volumes of legislation. Let us also acknowledge that government requirements for the money they provide, and the way it is used, are becoming increasingly directive, but also that the actual effect on local communities is governed by how successful any local authority is both politically and administratively in delivering high quality services, which now must be at least equal to government standards, though many, I am glad to say, but by no means all, achieve a much higher standard than that.
	On a small canvas the Government have controlled by means of traffic lights, targets, stars and inspection regimes the implementation of their policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, drew attention to many of the benefits that have come from such direction. I am the first to acknowledge that projects such as Surestart, the community safety partnerships and the anti-social behaviour policies have had some effect. My local authority has been very much in the forefront of those. But it is local authorities, not central government, which provide community leadership, support and underpin local strategic partnerships. In those areas the Government should be doing all they can regarding neighbourhood renewal policies to ensure that rather than being the impetus for policies generated from the centre, they have the courage and determination truly to devolve that responsibility to the most local administration.
	The Sustainable Communities Plan is one area where the Government are beginning to invest a great deal of effort. The commitment to build more than 250,000 houses in the south-east alone will clearly be impossible to achieve without much grief, unless it involves a close relationship with local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, who has left the Chamber, led the Corby Development Corporation with much skill and would probably be the first to admit that urban development corporations are difficult creatures to control. The important task of assembling not just housing, but infrastructure, schooling, community facilities and bringing together people who may not have had any relationship with each other into new communities is far from easy.
	The Sustainable Communities programme, which has only been touched on, is a huge policy for this Government. It is also fraught with danger which does and will need a great deal of local community involvement and local authority involvement to work. Together with Members of this House and of another place I had the privilege the other day of travelling to Poundbury to see that new development on the edge of Dorset, which was the brainchild of the Prince of Wales. There the community is being brought together slowly, with 500 or 600 households having been brought together in about five years.
	The progress of Sustainable Communities must be measured and taken with great care so that its development is carried out in a way with which we can all live into the future; where everyone will be happy to say that that work has been done and where the communities are able to live together closely. That is only a small aspect of this whole question—one that has been barely touched on in this debate, to my surprise. It is proper that it should be raised. It is an important policy for the Government which has to be handled both at the centre and particularly at local level.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I very much congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on calling this debate. I have to say that when I saw its title, which says:
	"To call attention to the role which central government play in supporting local communities",
	I thought, "about time. I am going to the House to talk about the Sustainable Communities Plan". So the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may be in for a bit of a shock, because that is all I am going to talk about. I wrote the speech with my advisers well before I heard anything said today. That is not to say that I have not been listening and I shall try to respond to some of the points made; but, although I wished to talk about the Sustainable Communities Plan, virtually everything that has been said came somewhere within my framework.
	There is one matter that I regret, which is my only note of discord. Given that the title of the debate is so wide, one could come to this House today to talk about virtually any subject that affects our fellow citizens. I want to know why there has obviously been an organised boycott by the Conservative Peers. That is clearly the case. There cannot be any other explanation. One of my noble friends misquoted the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as saying, "There is no such thing as community". Well, we know about that now, do we not? I had never replied to Wednesday debates before but I had one last week, one today and have one next week. It is astonishing that in a wide-ranging debate such as this the Conservative Party has absolutely nothing to say, except for the comments that the noble Baroness has just made from the Front Bench. Given all the expertise of the Conservatives in this House, I find that astonishing.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there has been absolutely no organised boycott. I do not know why other noble Lords on this side of the House have not found this subject interesting or one to which they could contribute. But there has been nothing either from the Front Bench or the Whips to suggest that people should not take part. I find the Minister's comment rather sad.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is sad. Given that the press used constantly to attack the Deputy Prime Minister for wanting to concrete over our green and pleasant land, one would have thought that the opportunity would have been taken to come and face the music. Having said that, it was the only note of discord that I wished to make and clearly it has struck home. I wish briefly to discuss the Sustainable Communities Plan and then I hope to deal with some of the more detailed points that have been raised.
	The Deputy Prime Minister's £22 billion Sustainable Communities Plan sets out our vision for reinvigorating existing communities in the north and the Midlands and to deliver new communities in the south—particularly the south-east. It is a national framework with regional and local flexibility. Sustainable communities to us mean cleaner, safer, greener and safer places in which economic progress and social justice go hand in hand. So, we are investing in education and healthcare. We are encouraging more jobs and safer streets. We are bringing new life to our town and city centres. We are offering more attractive, more welcoming public space and encouraging growth and greater confidence.
	Our approach to low demand in one area is a good example—referred to as the housing market renewal pathfinders. Our market renewal programme aims to tackle the underlying causes of housing market failure, support local people through the process and create long-lasting communities. It is based on three key principles. First, as I have said repeatedly, it is not a housing problem. Secondly, the Government set the overall context, but local communities need to be responsible and accountable for decisions affecting their lives. Thirdly, we need to work together in new ways to create sustainable communities. That means it is not just about housing, but jobs and the wider social infrastructure. If the issue is treated just as a housing problem, it will fail.
	Local involvement is vital to the scheme's success and the pathfinders are working hard to encourage participation from local communities. I accept that there was a national framework, but all of the nine pathfinders are different and will find different solutions. I found in my visits to them that some are clearly much more difficult than others. It is agreed within the department that east Lancashire, covering five local authorities and nine geographical areas has its work cut out to be successful, but I am sure that it will be. Merseyside's "Living through change" programme is encouraging existing residents to stay and to share in the long-term vision. It is a large-scale, £500 million programme.
	So far we have initiated the funding in six areas. Prospectuses are in my department for two areas, Birmingham/Sandwell and north Staffordshire. We expect the prospectus from Hull later in the year. However, Manchester/Salford, Newcastle/Gateshead, the three authorities in Merseyside working closer together than ever before, the authorities in South Yorkshire, Oldham/Rochdale and, as I have said, east Lancashire are working extremely well. It is very early days.
	We also have a programme for the "core cities" that demonstrates the value of our approach. We published A Tale of Eight Cities in April, which showed that although there was a long way to go, our major cities outside London are achieving economic success, social justice and sustainable communities for three key reasons: better local leadership, which makes a fundamental difference; making different funding streams work together; and effective public/private partnerships. Those eight core cities—Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool—are leading the way and we can learn the lessons to apply to the other key areas of the country.
	Growth areas form a key element of the Sustainable Communities Plan. These are high demand areas that require different solutions, but, again, we provide the resources and supportive framework. All of the key, fundamental decisions in the growth areas will be made in the growth areas, not in Whitehall. They represent a comprehensive programme to create the real communities, schools, nurseries, hospitals and health centres, shops, pubs, homes and jobs. They are not just housing. I must stress that it is not a matter of just providing 200,000 extra houses; it is 200,000 on top of those already planned up to 2016, which was 930,000. We are dealing with a massive enterprise here—1.1 million houses.
	I want to re-emphasise that the delivery unit in the town of Ashford is local authority-led. It is not imposed from the centre but is being carried out with our partners. The Thames Gateway will have a variety of delivery units because it is a 40-mile linear city but with green spaces and greenbelt areas put into it.
	Milton Keynes/south Midlands was one area touched on by my noble friend Lady Billingham and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in relation to Corby. Corby is not an urban development corporation; it is an urban regeneration company. It will not be in an area with an urban development corporation. Corby will be part of the north Northamptonshire delivery unit—a local authority-led delivery unit—unlike west Northamptonshire, which will include Towcester, Northampton and Daventry and will, indeed, be an urban development corporation. There is a major distinction between the two.
	With our partners in local government, we have tried to find the best delivery unit for each area. We have not come along from Whitehall and imposed schemes on them. The same will apply in the Peterborough, Cambridge, Stansted and London growth areas. We expect to deliver the 200,000 homes on top of those already planned. However, as I said, we cannot impose that from Whitehall; it must be carried out through local decision-making. The growth must be channelled into more sustainable communities, including the people who already live there. Of course, some younger people are being driven away because there are no affordable homes for them in the areas where they were brought up.
	We are taking a structured approach to the planning and delivery of local services and we are building community capacity and cohesion. We know that we have to do that. We are targeting funding to make a difference. For example, recently £11 million was allocated for a major new road and bridge at Wellingborough and £5 million towards progressing the Bedford western bypass. Those schemes have the potential to unlock land, most of which, but not all, is brownfield land, with almost 7,000 dwellings being built. We are clear that we must make the best use of brownfield land to help to ease the pressures on the countryside. I take second place to no one on that. We want to avoid urban sprawl.
	The proportion of new homes built on previously developed land rose from 58 per cent in 1998 to 64 per cent in 2002. The latest statistics show that we are on the right track in respect of the green belt. Since 1997, 25,000 hectares of green belt have been created, with a further 12,000 hectares due to be announced in local authority plans. That means that, under this Government, there are more than 35,000 extra hectares of greenbelt land across the country.
	I want to put the statistics in proportion. Greenbelt land covers 14 per cent of England; national parks land covers 8 per cent; and areas of outstanding natural beauty cover 16 per cent. Urban land accounts for about 10 per cent of the total. Let us get this in proportion. Even if we deliver the entire growth area, that 10 per cent will become 11 per cent, leaving 89 per cent green land compared with the 90 per cent now. Therefore, the idea that we are despoiling the countryside and getting rid of green land is absolute nonsense. No one has said that during today's debate; it is said in the media outside. I want to put the figures into perspective.
	In rural areas, we recognise the importance of delivering sustainable communities, and we are taking action in that respect. For example, we have a programme to help to maintain Britain's rural post offices, and we do not need to go over that. Sometimes the post office is the engine of economic generation and it is very important. Since 2001, the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme has spent £20 million on maintaining essential village services and helping communities to prepare parish plans.
	Rural regeneration is dependent on what happens at the most local levels. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with rural communities to help them to maintain local services and community facilities and to improve their capacity to engage in decision-making. The Housing Corporation also has a separate rural housing programme. Last year, it increased its target for small settlements, which are defined as villages or small towns with a population of less than 3,000. The programme involved building 1,300 dwellings a year. That number increased to 1,600 and has now reached 1,750 a year. That will be double the figure for the year 2000–01. In addition, there is a separate programme for larger rural areas and market towns, in which a further 5,000 dwellings organised by local authorities and the Housing Corporation were built last year.
	We do not simply want to build communities; we want to build sustainable communities. The design must be good. We are already knocking down material that was built 20 years ago. We increased our support for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment as part of the Sustainable Communities Plan in 2003 to drive up design standards. With our extra funding, which was substantial compared with existing funding, CABE was able to launch a new unit, known as CABE Space, to act as a national champion for better-quality parks and public spaces. In the housing market in the Pathfinder areas of the north, and indeed in the growth areas, we are cajoling people to ensure that big developments are checked over by CABE so that we have good design and good functionality. Good design is not only about making places visually attractive; it is also crucial to how places function.
	We also need to improve skills, offer training and give people a chance to make the most of their potential. We must ensure that everyone has a fair chance. That is why we commissioned a report from Sir John Egan on the skills that are needed to improve sustainable communities. We are going to take that report forward. It was published only a few days ago.
	We can do that only through engaging local communities and groups at neighbourhood, delivery and strategic levels. That is a crucial area for the £2.5 billion programme for neighbourhood renewal. Effective local strategic partnerships can, indeed, bring together the key agencies. As my noble friend Lord Woolmer said, the private sector plays a vital role, as does the community and voluntary sector, in deciding how better services can be made to reach communities. In some areas, the private sector has disappeared, and we need to get it back into those communities.
	Community leadership is vital. The ethos of the New Deal for Communities programme, for example, is that communities should be at the heart, working with key agencies to transform neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood renewal is not only about additional funding; it is a question of ensuring that existing funds work more smartly and it is about "mainstreaming". I want to take up that point.
	I realise that there is a question of schemes being community-led. The New Deal for Communities did not mean that the local community made all the decisions, irrespective of working with anyone else. The idea was to get the local community to work with all the other partners. I freely admit that there have been one or two problems relating to slowness, capacity and governance in about nine of the 39 New Deal for Communities programmes. We are correcting those as we go along. However, I think that it was a little unfair to quote from the recent National Audit Office report without indicating that that office also compared neighbourhood renewal in this country with five or six overseas countries and said that our programme was more radical and innovative and more likely to succeed than any of the other programmes that it had looked at in those overseas countries.
	Therefore, while I accept that there has been a slow start to a 10-year programme, and we have had some difficulties which we have put right as we have gone along, the fact is that we are leading the way in trying to renew neighbourhoods in a sustainable way. Indeed, I attended one such area—not an NDC area—early this morning in the south Acton part of Ealing, where the creation was announced of a new arm's-length management organisation. I did not go to make that announcement; it was announced elsewhere while I was there. There, they are rebuilding a community from the 1960s. They have had to carry out some remodelling of the estate, regenerate jobs and remodel the community. All that is being done at local level with a partnership between the council and others. It was very interesting to see the scheme, and I promised that I would give it a plug here this afternoon.
	The issue also comes down to what one of the local residents there said to me. She asked, "Will the spending make a difference to our lives? We want to be part of this. We want to see a difference". That is what it is all about. Therefore, it is important to focus on key geographical areas and to concentrate on schemes to tackle specific problems.
	Reference was made to the coalfields, which provide a good example. This Government inherited an appalling situation. In the decade to 1991, 60,000 men of working age left the coalfields. The death rate was 12 per cent higher and overall crime rates were 20 per cent higher than the national average. Overall, across 10 years, our £386 million national coalfield programme will deliver 42,000 jobs, 4,000 hectares of re-used land, 2 million square metres of commercial floor space, 8,000 quality new homes and £1 billion of private sector investment in the coalfields.
	We have already given the Coalfields Regeneration Trust about £100 million so that people can access the skills, jobs and training that they need to earn a decent living. We have just announced that the trust will receive an additional £15 million for the year to March 2006. Massive changes are taking place in these coalfield communities. That takes time; nevertheless, so far, more than 8,000 community groups have been supported, 90,000 people are receiving education and training and 14,000 have received qualifications as a result of the programme. At the moment I do not have the figure for the amount of land that has been reclaimed. I had it earlier, but it is now buried in the index. However, a substantial amount of land has been reclaimed. As that land is brought to the market and the value returns, it is recycled into the coal field communities programme. That is a very targeted operation indeed and one that was sadly needed in view of our inheritance.
	We know that policies for local communities need to be within a regional policy. There is no doubt about that. The United Kingdom has had one of the most centralised systems of government. I know some still claim that it is very centralised, but with the new legislation of responsible communities, freedoms and flexibilities and freedom to borrow, there is now much more freedom for local government than there has been in the recent past.
	We have one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world, with decisions taken too remotely from the places that they affect, but we are changing that. Previous approaches to regional policy did not do enough to close the gap between areas of high and low unemployment. The new generation of measures seeks to strengthen indigenous sources of growth, local enterprise, innovation, infrastructure skills and the labour market and to do so by using local groups, local communities, the private and public sectors, different kinds of delivery vehicles, ensuring that red tape is at the absolutely minimum, and ensuring that we bring in as much private commercial capital as possible.
	Most of the investment in all the areas that I have discussed will come from the private sector, but only because the public sector is willing to have a long-term plan for sustainable communities to ensure that we put in the infrastructure. Not only must the roads and the railways be there, but we must also ensure that the schools and the medical centres are built at the same time as the houses so that people do not have to wait years for them.
	Since 1997 the Government have given local authorities and their regions a greater chance to improve their performance and to develop capability, capacity and competence. Good progress is being made. Yesterday, during Question Time, I referred to the announcement that 6,000 children no longer live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I accept that that was a commitment before the communities plan was published, but it was part and parcel of the operation that we were trying to undertake.
	Earlier today my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced the approval of 58 new schemes that could release up to £3 billion more investment to bring another 170,000 homes up to a decent standard and reduce the number of non-decent social homes. He also announced a new initiative to enable proposed stock transfers with a funding gap to go ahead. That demonstrates real progress towards our aim of making all social housing decent by 2010. We are supporting local communities through a national framework for action, delivering money and support where it is most needed, empowering local people to deliver progress according to their own priorities.
	I have reached the time limit on my speech, mainly because of the couple of minutes I wasted at the beginning in attacking the Conservative Party. I have covered many points without referring specifically to the noble Lords who raised them. However, on four or five matters I shall write to noble Lords. I shall answer, in a compendium letter, the key issues that were raised that I have not been able to cover. That way I shall not have to write half a dozen different letters, but I shall put everything in one letter.
	I have not touched on the crucial role of the regional development agencies, although I have touched on regional policy. Those agencies have a fundamental role in this matter and we shall seek to ensure that that is strengthened. Some issues went outside the brief. The estate that I visited this morning has problems with drug misuse and, therefore, we need to remodel it in the interests of those who live there which, first, means eradicating the dealers from the estate. There are many issues to be dealt with.
	I have touched on some aspects of the rural policy and I shall answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on MISC 22. MISC 22 is a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Its original brief was to look at the Thames Gateway. To start with that was its sole brief. The Gateway was designated by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, 15 years ago. We do not claim credit for that but we need to get it moving. It is designed to look at how the public get back the money from the vast increase in land values that will take place to build the infrastructure. We are talking about river crossings, so the noughts go on the end of all the estimates. Since then the brief has been widened and now covers the other three growth areas.
	The sub-committee meets under the leadership of the Prime Minister and he will be expecting and receiving a verbal, across-the-table report from myself and other Ministers before the month is out. It meets from time to time, but it is key because a Civil Service group mirrors it. So it has not died a death. It is a key part of us ensuring that Whitehall decisions are all joined up because we have to answer to the boss on that.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it remains for me to thank my noble friend the Minister for his typically robust reply and all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I thank the noble mob on this side of the House—it is a shame and a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not have the support of her mob. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Political Parties

Viscount Chandos: rose to call attention to the role which political parties play in public life; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, your Lordships' House is distinguished by the presence of, and the great contributions by, its Cross-Bench Members. It is hard to find a parliament in the world where there is any comparable, substantial element of independent membership. Switzerland is perhaps the closest. Even if we have not as yet reached a consensus about the next stage of reform of this House, there is widespread conviction that its future composition should include the independent component that exists today.
	For that reason I hope that the debate that I have the privilege to introduce today will have an unusual resonance: an exploration of the role of political parties in public life from a Chamber with a unique balance between party political and independent Members and, even beyond that, a justified tradition of independence on all Benches.
	I am delighted to see on the list of speakers today members of, I think, five political parties, including not only those well represented in this House and another place, but also others such as the Green Party, in the unmistakable form of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose parliamentary representation is more limited, a subject about which I suspect he, and I am sure other speakers, will have more to say.
	Among the small collection of press cuttings that I have relating to my political and parliamentary life, there is only one that my wife thought worthy of pinning to the kitchen board. In it, the then political editor of the Daily Express, before his move, no doubt to avoid being asked to join in the Basil Fawlty-like antics of that paper's management, to his current position at the Spectator, nominated me, as a result of my support for the Government's proposals for the first stage of the reform of this House, as "Crawler of the Week".
	I am conscious that I may be encouraging a further award, as I now owe my position in your Lordships' House to my nomination by a political party as opposed to the accident of birth. So, to my declaration that political parties are the lifeblood, the very essence of parliamentary democracy, I am quite prepared to find a response, to echo Christine Keeler, of "Well, he would, wouldn't he?". I will assert, nonetheless, that political parties have enriched public life over many centuries and continue to do so; and, most importantly, they should play a key role in the re-engagement of public interest in politics and trust in the political process. Of course, it is always difficult to separate clearly the role of the individual and the contribution of a party to which he or she belongs. However, if we look at the great reforms and political events of the past 200 years, parties have been at the centre of them: from the abolition of slavery to the introduction of the minimum wage and the foundation of the National Health Service to the right to buy council houses.
	The support for Winston Churchill in 1940 by the Labour Party (notwithstanding the story of mis-communication over the acceptability of Halifax) demonstrates the critical role of a constructive opposition. The very issues that have stretched parties to their limits or beyond—Corn Law reform, Ireland, Europe and even Iraq—represent a testament to the vibrancy of the political process and the parties' place in that.
	Even when the running has been made by single issue groups—as, most notably perhaps, in the case of women's suffrage—I would argue that it has been the ultimate interaction with one or more of the political parties that has ultimately led to successful change.
	Professor Dennis Kavanagh has written that political parties reconcile conflicting interests, act as vehicles of participation, assist in the recruitment of people for public office, strengthen democratic control, strengthen choice—through the provision of packages of ideas and policies—strengthen communication between government and society, and assist in the enforcement of accountability.
	We recognise in other countries the essential desirability of a multi-party system for the creation of an effective parliamentary democracy and the essential incorporation of human rights in those societies. Formal or de facto one-party states are little better than overt dictatorships, and arguably can be worse as they cover the vices of autocracy with a deceptive veneer of democratic legitimacy.
	As America emerged at the end of the 18th century from the shadow of empire and sought to establish a society of its own design, there were strong voices for doing so without the incorporation of political parties—a demonstration perhaps that disillusion with political parties is not an entirely new thing. But, try as they might, they could not devise a parliamentary democracy that did not ultimately depend on the central role of political parties.
	For all of this, however, there is no shortage of evidence that public interest in politics and political parties has been declining—falling party memberships; sharply lower turn-out at the last general election; opinion polls that show young people are more likely to join a single issue organisation than a political party; and the combined membership of the two largest environmental groups exceeding that of either of the two largest political parties. Why is that and what can be done about it?
	My noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, in a speech on democratic engagement last week analysed both the underlying trends and their possible causes. I agree with him that not all the reasons are necessarily ominous. In a changing society with improving economic trends and government initiatives benefiting many—but not all—people, it is reasonable to expect that many people want a lower level of engagement with politics and political parties, placing greater priority and value on family and friends, work and leisure interests.
	However, on several counts, that analysis offers no grounds for complacency. Democratic disengagement is most marked within the lowest income groups, so economic contentment at least cannot be an overwhelming factor; and even among those who may feel some degree of contentment, we should think carefully before allowing a declining level of political interest and participation to become embedded.
	I would not want to leave the impression that my noble and learned friend viewed these trends with any more complacency than I do. My noble friend the Minister, in winding up, may well address some of the same issues and ideas that are humming around their department.
	I should like to use the remainder of my introduction to touch briefly on five issues—trust, patronage, the parties' challenge to renew their appeal in a changing society, the linkage between political parties and their representation at every level of democracy, and party funding.
	My noble and learned friend rather disarmingly said in his speech last week:
	"The evidence seems to show that trust in politicians to put the national interest first over party interest was never high, is not high now and has fallen".
	If we read the great satirists and writers over the ages and look at the contemporary cartoonists, we find plenty of support for the low starting point to which my noble friend refers—no "Golden Age" in that context.
	From this low starting point, therefore, I wonder whether trust has really fallen? And, if so, has it been by any more than that applying to many other institutions in a society where there is openly less deference towards established institutions than in the past? There is no doubt that political parties in and out of government should strive ceaselessly to improve the way they can, on the one hand, provide leadership, while on the other, still leave the electorate with reasonable, realistic expectations. A formidably difficult challenge, which I suspect armchair pundits, whether in the Lobby, the pub or fashionable dinner parties inevitably underestimate. So I do not question this perceived decline in trust in order to advocate a reduction in these efforts. Rather, I offer it as another case where we should be careful not to allow a desirable sensitivity to public opinion to create an exaggerated sense of inadequacy—in psychobabble terms, a sense of collective low self-esteem. Not an affliction, I suppose, that is conventionally associated with politicians.
	I was struck when I read a short and stimulating book written a few years ago by the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, entitled The Purpose of Politics. In 176 pages, I do not believe that he referred once to political parties or their role, even in a chapter headed "Politics as a Constructive Art". In contrast, the great former leader of his party, Disraeli, said:
	"I believe that without party, Parliamentary Government is impossible."
	And, possibly less reliably, he also had attributed to him the cry:
	"Damn your principles! Stick to your Party!"
	I do not cite this comparison to make a party-political point—there may still be time for that later—but to illustrate the mood of the age, where I sense that advocacy of party in politics has become the love that dare not speak its name.
	Whether trust is low and declining, therefore, or just low, we must do everything we can to increase it. Over the last 10 years, the transparency of government and of politics has, I believe, been transformed. Started under the last Conservative government, if not under duress, but perhaps under crisis—and significantly enhanced since 1997 by this Government—this new openness is unequivocally to be welcomed. But with it has come a new challenge; to operate in government in political and public life, while being subject to an intensity of constant scrutiny that is far greater than that applying to practically any other walk of life. Premiership football, perhaps, being the most glaring exception.
	I would not have it any other way. But I think that, if this is not a naively optimistic sentiment, all participants in public life and, critically, the media in their coverage should perhaps respond to this enhanced openness with a corresponding maturity in the way they treat information.
	Government have exercised great patronage throughout history and, I believe, generally honestly and well. It is clearly right that party affiliation should not give any advantage to candidates for non-political office. Equally there is a risk that if party affiliation of any colour becomes seen—in a McCarthyite way—as an absolute disadvantage for anyone seeking a role in public life outside the strict parliamentary arena, then either or both public interest and the political system will be diminished.
	Political parties need to recognise the changed society in which they now operate and, without compromising their fundamental raison d'entre, find new ways of engaging with their actual and prospective supporters. If we look over to the United States at the presidential campaign—and the Democratic primary leading up to it—it is clear that, even if Howard Dean proved spectacularly unsuccessful in his quest for the nomination, he has found ways of reaching parts of America that others could not reach. Not primarily, I believe, because of his success in appealing to the anti-war vote specifically, but much more through his harnessing of a powerful network—both metaphorically and, through the Internet, literally—of latent activists and supporters.
	Above all, as my noble and learned friend argued last week, political parties will succeed in re-engaging the interests and support of different parts of society by putting forward programmes and policies that strongly connect with those people, offering in particular hope and ambition for the disadvantaged. If we believe that political parties are essential to parliamentary democracy then we must inexorably recognise that political parties need fair representation in Parliament and in all levels of elected bodies.
	The introduction of proportional representation for the European elections, mayoral elections and those to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales represent a huge step forward, but like, I am sure, other speakers, at least on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we must recognise that there is unfinished business. A more proportional voting system for Westminster elections is a necessary condition for achieving greater public democratic engagement. So, too, is reform of party funding. I very much look forward to the report on the subject later this summer by the Electoral Commission, and strongly hope that it will recommend some form of match funding for parties, combined with a cap on individual contributions.
	I cannot end my remarks in praise of political parties without one unabashed statement of support for my party. I am sure that other noble Lords may feel the same about theirs. When I look back over the past seven years I feel real pride in the achievements of this Government: great steps towards the elimination of child poverty; the establishment of economic stability combined with a dynamic environment for innovation and growth; widespread constitutional and social reform; and vital initial moves to reform the provision of public services. I believe that that pride is widely shared by members and supporters of my party. That pride lies at the heart of the party's strength and, through that, the strength of our democracy. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for introducing an extremely important and interesting subject. This is a classic Wednesday debate. I hope that I will not embarrass him when I say that I agree with most of what he had to say. He quoted Disraeli's definition of a political party; I shall go back a little further, to Edmund Burke, in the 18th century. He defined a political party as,
	"a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed".
	If one substitutes "men and women", that definition is as relevant today as it was when it was first given. Looking back, when a political party and its leaders have adopted that principle, it has usually been successful. When they have departed from those principles, they have usually paid a heavy price. Two obvious examples in the past century were Peel, over the reform of the Corn Laws, and Gladstone, over Irish Home Rule.
	Like the noble Viscount, I should like to refer to some of the worrying features in political life today. As he said, people, particularly the young, are not joining political parties in the numbers that they used to. I remember the good old days when the Young Conservatives served as a great marriage bureau. I am sure that the same applied to other political parties, and no doubt the Cross Benches had a similar operation. It seems today that people are more attracted to one-issue groups, which, although they fulfil a valuable function, do not see politics in the round.
	The other worrying feature, to which the noble Viscount also referred, is the poor turnout of voters. That has been a feature in local and European elections for some time, but it is now also appearing in general elections. As the noble Viscount reminded us, our forefathers fought long and hard to get universal suffrage in this country, but it no longer seems to be regarded as the prize of citizenship that it once was. That must be disturbing to anyone—including, I am sure, all noble Lords—who believes in responsible and representative government.
	What is the reason for that apparent decline? There is a whole series of reasons. The main one is people's rising expectations. Twenty years ago we did not dream of the expectations for life and leisure that we have today. We are egged on by advertisers and the media to expect the moon. No wonder, in those circumstances, that governments of all colours do not always succeed in meeting people's expectations. Disappointment and apathy set in, and it is easy for people to say, "Why bother? They do not care about me." What is to be done? First, we are trying out new methods of voting, in addition to, or in place of, the traditional ballot box in the polling station on a Thursday. If those methods can be achieved without fraud or confusion, they are wholly desirable. However, they do not go to the heart of the problem.
	I disagree with the noble Viscount on the financing of political parties. The Short and Cranborne money to enable parties in opposition to fulfil their parliamentary functions is valuable. It gives them broadly the equivalent of the Civil Service available to the government of the day. But I am very doubtful about extending that still further to the activities of political parties in the country. That could easily be resented and therefore counterproductive.
	The referendum is now part of our constitutional arrangements, and the procedure is covered by law. I am bound to say that I am not enthusiastic, for three reasons. First, it tends to weaken the authority of Parliament and of parliamentarians using their judgment rather than following public opinion. Secondly, it is difficult to draft a question that will be readily understood by those asked to vote. Perhaps most important of all is the tendency of people to vote for or against the government of the day rather than on the issue before them. However, the referendum is here to stay, and if people feel more involved as a consequence of a referendum, that is all for the good. We should certainly have a referendum on such vital matters as the European constitution. It is not a tidying-up matter; it is one of major importance. I am very glad that the Government have conceded that the referendum will take place.
	Whatever the solutions to the problems, we in Parliament and the political parties have a big responsibility. To some extent, we have failed to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of the British people. Too many people feel out of touch, and too many feel that we do not understand properly their hopes, ambitions, worries and fears. Too many people also, particularly in recent times, feel that governments say one thing and do another. Unless we can find ways to break down these barriers, the consequences for stability and good government in our country will be serious. If we succeed, as I am confident we will, we will add a new, splendid chapter to the political genius of the British people.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this debate today, calling attention to the role played by political parties in public life. It is an important, but neglected, issue. I thank him for his balanced contribution. I am particularly pleased at his reference to proportional representation, and I forgive him his one-minute party political broadcast.
	There have been attempts to define a political party. The major element of a political party is its generalist nature, rather than being a single-issue pressure group. I have written down, "a loose grouping of men and women, nationally, regionally and locally based, with similar values and ethos, leading to principles, and then that is followed by policies". It is interesting that it is national, regional and local. Indeed, the main political parties have been regionally based and had regional organisations long before thoughts of devolution.
	I perhaps ought to declare an interest, as a Liberal Democrat and a former Liberal, having had involvement politically at national, regional and local level. I am also a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, and a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, chairing its democracy committee. Those two organisations make grants in the general area of democracy.
	To be effective, political parties need members. The numbers of those members have been going down hill fast for a long time. There is almost a secret at the level of decline. People do not want to own up that their party does not have quite as many members as they would like people to think it had. Members are needed; they are needed to be candidates. We are a few days away from a nomination day, when in metropolitan areas, because of the all-out nature of elections, political parties that want to be vibrant must fight all the seats, with the maximum number of candidates. That means that there is a bit of scratching in terms of those who are persuaded that perhaps it would be a wonderful thing if their name were to be on the ballot paper.
	Activists are also needed. In some work done by the Joseph Rowntree trusts, on local government elections in Calderdale, Burnley and Oldham, it is interesting that the people are saying that they want to see people on doorsteps, and they want to be able to speak to representatives of those political parties. There is a decline in the numbers who are prepared to do that work and be the foot soldiers. There is a disinclination to join political parties. There is a perception that nice people do not do it.
	Yet, these political parties do change. If you look at the major parties, the Conservative Party was a one-nation party, and it changed itself into a rather different sort of party; the Labour Party was the old Labour Party, and has become new Labour; the Liberal Party and the SDP merged to become the Liberal Democrats. We have seen a resurgence in the national parties in Scotland and Wales. We have seen new entrants, and they—the Greens, the UKIP, the BNP—have a tendency to be on certain issues only. Particularly with the latter, it is worth making the point that if gaps are made, someone will fill them.
	It is interesting that people compare the numbers involved in political parties with the numbers who join the RSPB and the National Trust. I do not know how active members are in those organisations, or whether they like the picture books that may come along. We need a climate where it is thought that membership of a political party is a high calling. It is a great shame, although I see an array of Bishops in front of me, that we do not have a Bishop or a Cross-Bencher taking part in this debate. Party politics is too important to leave to the politicos. Unless we are moving to a point where there is a post-political party politics en route, political parties are essential in terms of elected office, policy, campaigning, and they need ideas, people and money.
	In the times that we are living in, it seems that there is a choice of where the money comes from. It would be interesting to put the question to the British people of whether they want their politics funded by on the one hand, rich people, or on the other hand, the state. Which answer would they come up with? In my book, they would say "neither". They would say, "Oh no, we would sooner it be ordinary folk, ordinary volunteers". Of course, they are not there in numbers and the resources that they are able to bring in voluntary subscriptions are not sufficient to the needs of a political party. We ought to be moving to a time when membership is linked to money, and there is a system of funding whereby there could be a tax rebate or a grant, provided that a subscription is paid in the first place to that political party. The incentive of getting more money and more members may well be a route to more activists and more people. Such a scheme would work only if there was a local return in the case of those moneys; an incentive to local people, and not a sense that any subscriptions, rebate or tax deduction would go to a headquarters in London.
	Perhaps I have spent far too long on the present position, but I did so because it is serious. Political parties are in a state of serious decline. The question here is the role that they play in public life. I often have carried a receipt book about for my political party and signed up people as members from time to time. It should not be a liability to be a member. It has not been unusual for me to suggest that someone had the right attitude and perhaps ought to be a member of the political party of my choice, and for them to say, "Well, I must be very careful, I could not really commit myself".
	Political parties are important in the role of our proceedings. We presently have state funding, in terms of that policy money. We have an involvement in terms of the list systems for elections, which, if the numbers in the parties are so reduced, means that very important decisions are in the hands of a tiny group of people. Political parties are too important to be seen only as a place for the deviant or the anorak.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for initiating the debate. It provides the opportunity to discuss where political parties fit in society today, on which I shall concentrate. As my noble friend said, political parties are essential institutions in our democracy, which provide the crucial link between voter preference and the forming of government at all levels; that is, local, national and European.
	I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. We should be building our political parties and not falling for the slogan that we hear too often; namely, that the party is over. There is no doubt that membership of political parties is falling. Only 3.5 per cent of British voters are members of any political party. We used to talk about "mass parties". That has always been a myth. There has never been any such thing as a mass party. There has always been only a minority of the electorate who has joined political parties.
	I am not so worried about membership, although, as an ex-party apparatchik, of course I want membership to increase. But I am much more concerned about the disenchantment of the electorate and examining why that so; for example, whether it is because of disinterest, complacency or detachment from politics generally. Yesterday, the Electoral Commission published a new report, entitled, Do you do politics?. It concludes that the vast majority of people see politics as something that someone else does. We need to get over that phenomenon in order to build our political parties.
	As I said, members are still needed. We are still considered by the majority of people as a group of very strange people who are members of political parties, go to party meetings, attend conferences, work with the local or national party machine and spend time knocking on doors. But our democracy owes a great debt to these grass-root activists. Without them, politics and decision making would be dependent on the temporary whims of populism. Without parties, voters would be confronted with a bewildering array of independents. Parties add meaning and clarity, through manifestos and campaign messages. We hope that that enables voters to make rational choices when they put their crosses on the ballot papers.
	If there is a democratic malaise, I think that the media, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, referred, has a lot to answer for. I shall give just one example: it is absolutely appalling that there is a discussion of a candidate being chosen for public office by a pop-idol style political programme. That makes a farce of our political system. Politics is about people working together through political parties to influence the communities in which they live, and not passively selecting a media-manufactured false idol.
	Political parties are the gatekeepers to political office. They provide the mechanisms for public representatives to receive public endorsement and work within a laid-down set of rules, which is very important. Parties today are more than just election machines that mobilise electoral support. They are recruitment agencies for public representatives, the training ground for local councillors and MPs and, ultimately, for our party leaders and Prime Minister, which we sometimes forget.
	Shortly, we shall discuss the report of the Electoral Commission, entitled, Gender and Political Participation, and the crucial role that political parties play in promoting more women as public representatives. It is a clear illustration of why we need political parties.
	As I said before, it is disturbing how little voters know about political parties. There seems to exist deep-seated misconceptions, ignorance about politics generally and—I believe absolutely—real distrust. That level of distrust has grown over the years and should not be taken with any complacency.
	Research by Eurobarometer identified that only 15 per cent of the population trusted political parties. In a recent survey, the Institute for Citizenship showed that 64 per cent of those surveyed knew hardly anything about how Parliament or their local councils work. It is no wonder that people are not really interested. It is not wholly surprising when, until recently, there has been two decades without citizenship being taught adequately in schools.
	The real question for many people is: why have any interest or participate in a political party when it appears that decision making in many areas has moved away from government to non-elected bodies, such as quangos, to regulators or to international institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank? We no longer live in a neat environment within known boundaries.
	Many key decisions affecting people's lives are now beyond the reach of domestic politics. As globalisation and technological change are mainly developing outside the conventional political framework, people are finding alternative avenues of engagement and new ways of feeling connected. New technology is the biggest driver of political change. The Internet allows different forms of interaction based on common interest and lifestyles. We are fast becoming a society of individuals who interact with each other through a nexus of networks. Influence is now increasingly shared among a variety of formal and informal networks, pressure groups and charitable organisations.
	It is a myth that the British people are apathetic, which always relates to whether they vote. But British people are not apathetic. All the evidence belies the idea that the public have somehow become disengaged from civil life. Rather, the British are a society of joiners. The problem is that their interest in political issues is not translated into interest in political parties.
	Other noble Lords have referred to the single-interest groups. There are now more than 180,000 registered charities in the UK, of which many have very large memberships and whose influence is felt and recognised by the Government. Organisations have been brought into policy making and implementation at the highest levels of government. That is challenging the role of parties as the main agents of political participation.
	There is a plethora of area-based initiatives and schemes; for example, people involved in the New Deal and Sure Start programmes and local civil forums. Local people are providing civic leadership and accountability with a sense of ownership of the outcome and that their contribution has made a difference. But parties are distinguished from those alliances by their desire not just to influence those in government but to become—or become part of—government themselves.
	Nevertheless, political parties have to be involved in the changes in society and must look at the way in which they operate. If parties are to impress voters and to sustain their reputation as agents of change, there is a clear need to cultivate new themes and update traditional thinking. That may mean a new style of political party that turns outwards to local campaigns and concerns, and which needs to be seen to be very engaged in the local community. I agree that organisations need to be properly funded and professionally run.
	There is an urgent need to rebuild the relevance of politics as a concept and as an activity worth taking part in. We should not forget that the lesson of the 20th century has been the birth and growth of political parties in eastern Europe, South Africa and the old Soviet Union, providing them, for the first time, with democratic and representative governance.
	Political parties are central to democracy. In the main, they are the only way that public opinion can be effectively articulated and governments elected. As long as there is representative governance, there will be political parties that are made up of people with joint values coming together to bring about social change. That is the essence of our political democracy.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am a party man—all sorts of parties, but particularly political ones—from the moment when my father held me up on the balcony of the Bull's Head in the market square in Aylesbury in 1935 and, secure in his 20,000 majority, introduced me to the crowd as its future Conservative Member of Parliament; through the moment when I made a speech as a cocky late arrival at Gordonstoun in 1942 announcing that Labour would sweep into power after the war and that the Conservatives would get back at the following election—not bad forecasting—and that I would be in that House; through to the day when Frank Byers brought me into the languishing Liberal party—only five MPs at that particular moment—during my first term at Oxford; and down to the day when, after 50 years in the Liberal Party, I finally realised that one could not be Green, which I always knew that I was, and believe in free trade. And I joined the Green Party. I have never had occasion to doubt the party system during that whole period. That is why I welcome the debate and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for introducing it.
	When I was running the Liberal Party back in the early 1960s, the local government of this country quite largely rejected the involvement of political parties, and members of the Conservative Party, in particular, expected to run large parts of the country while serving as "independent" councillors. It was my welcome duty to help the Liberal Party to challenge that situation and, together with our own red guard headed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—who I am sorry is not taking part in the debate—to introduce community politics, which was much derided because of its emphasis on cracked pavements.
	But cracked pavements are what the householder cares about. For this reason it is important that we bring down the units of representation as low as possible. I believe I was right to say the other day, in our debate on London governance, that we should go back to the old boroughs that existed before the big ones were introduced.
	The Green Party is a serious party and it is to be taken seriously. It has claims to be the fastest growing political party in the country—certainly, none of the major ones seem to be growing—and, wherever there is a reasonable system of voting, its candidates get elected. It has two Members from England in the European Parliament—both outstanding—where they are members of an important and influential bloc; on the Greater London Assembly it has a group of three members; and in the Scottish Parliament it has eight. It is not a party to be dismissed out of hand.
	Why did the last set of nominations to your Lordships' House not contain a Green? It is monstrous. My grandfather, Lord Gainford, died in your Lordships' House, sitting on the Privy Council Bench. One of these days you will find that I, too, have passed away in this little green eyrie of mine up here because the Prime Minister has not seen fit to do his clear duty, which is to send me a colleague.

Lord Patten: My Lords, for once, I am left slightly speechless by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but I enjoyed his speech. As a party man through and through, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has given the House the chance to discuss this issue. Indeed, if at a post-mortem I was cut across, you would find "Conservative, Conservative, Conservative" written there like the inside of a stick of Brighton or Blackpool rock, venues where I have spent so many party conferences—those endearing crosses between a seminar and a bacchanalia.
	I wish to refer to three issues today: the party system, my party and the role of the non-party when it manages to get a toehold in elective politics or finds itself represented on the Cross Benches of your Lordships' House.
	First, our party system is deeply embedded in our way of doing things, with two of the big national parties able to trace their roots back to the 18th century. One party, Labour—old Labour or new Labour; I could not quite gather which phrase found favour with the noble Viscount—can trace its roots into the late 19th century. Conservative, Labour and Liberal are part of the warp and weft of our national lives. They have been joined more latterly by the Greens, and we must not ignore the parties of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I wish only that I was able to campaign among the steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone as a Conservative and Unionist, as we used to be able to do.
	We should not feel self-satisfied as political party members but between us, thanks to the common sense of the British people over recent centuries, we have managed, more or less, to eschew revolutionary politics, favoured stability and been fairly tolerant as a nation. Political parties are part of our national political settlement; they help us to codify, restrain and domesticate the national tensions that otherwise might erupt.
	That is not to say that political parties are spotless vessels. Party politics is a form of gang warfare: it is highly organised both between the gangs and within them. No party leader ever manages to rise to power, let alone stay in power, without the help of his or her own gang of political supporters. Even as someone who hung up his political knuckle-duster from active service some years ago, I have a fairly precise feel for the social structure of my own party and a deep fascination, as an observant outsider, for the shifting gang boundaries within the Labour Party, with its new clan and factional groupings emerging under the new Labour or old Labour would-be robber barons.
	I am not absolutely certain in which gang to place the Minister who is to reply to the debate; I am not quite sure what secret sign he gives or whether he has some clan marking about his person. Perhaps we will find out over the years. However, I get a growing sense that, rather like the last of the Mohicans, our Prime Minister, Mr Blair, is becoming more and more the last of the Blairites—save for some cheerful figures such as the noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who is endlessly and busily involved in forming a protective ring of wagons. My only message to the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend is that he might spend so much time getting the wagons in a protective circle that, once they are arranged, he will find out that there is no one left in the middle.
	It will be very hard for a genuinely national new party to find much space in our crowded party field, any more than a new daily newspaper would get much of a look-in should it be launched. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said about not so many people joining now. I hear that party membership figures go up and down; I am told by the press that the Labour Party's figures are going down. I have no idea whether that is true. Trusting party figures is like trusting the circulation figures of national newspapers; anyone who travels by train and sees the great megalithic piles of free newspapers which are given out knows how unreliable are the circulation figures of our national newspapers.
	I am certainly told—this is interesting because I know the place a little, as does my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who is sitting on the Privy Council Bench—that this year in Oxford there are suddenly more members of the University Conservative Association than there have been for a quarter of a century, during the run-up to the 1979 general election. I have no idea what this means or how accurate it is, but it is interesting to see that some people still do wish to join. But most of the British electorate are not great joiners of political parties, even though, come a general election, those who get to vote cleave to someone to vote for.
	This brings me to my second point in regard to my own party, the Conservatives. Arguably the oldest party in the known world—and probably intergalactically—we Conservatives know who we are. We do not need to change our name a la new Labour, a term that I predict will be dropped as quickly as you can say "Keir Hardie" under the leadership of a different Labour leader. Let me pick a name completely out of the hat; Mr Gordon Brown, for example. I do not think you will find much new Labour should he be in No. 10.
	I think we should call ourselves "Conservatives", not "Tories". I have noticed increasingly in the media the use of the word "Tory" as a form of abuse. I have once or twice in the past mentioned to your Lordships that I feel that the BBC, in particular, has a slant. I do not blame it for having a slant; it is perfectly understandable in a group of men and women who have taken their views on life. I have a number of friends in the BBC—I would not dream of mentioning them for fear of ruining their career—to whom I talk. I see the BBC as being, broadly speaking, a tiny bit inside the liberal left—a bit pro-Palestinian and a bit pro-Europe—but certainly not pro-Conservative. One notices that by the way in which the BBC increasingly uses the word "Tory" in its comments. When was the last time any of your Lordships heard the BBC refer to the Labour Party, new Labour or old Labour, as the "Socialists"—and yet the Labour Party in this country belongs to a number of international socialist organisations? I think, on the grounds of balance, that every time the BBC uses the word "Tory" it should balance it with a reference to the Labour Party as "Socialists". That would be nearer the point. I will not, however, press this for fear of causing the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to erupt on to his feet saying that the Liberals should be referred to as Whigs. I would not want to go that far.
	Thirdly and lastly, I would like to say how important I think that fast-vanishing group of people, the independents, is in this country. I am not a great man for quotas, but I wish that in some ways we could find mechanisms for encouraging more people to stand as independents in local government. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that in the old days, many people stood as independents, particularly in rural areas, and they were actually Tories. We have a number of people who sit primly on the Cross Benches, that bastion of the vice-chancellorian and upper mandarinate classes, whom we know are strong supporters of the Labour Party, because they do a spot of "blue skies thinking" on its behalf.
	It is extremely important that we look to the health of the independents in this place and ensure that we have routes to membership of the Cross Benches that would allow such great national treasures as our Deputy Prime Minister, for example, to emerge on to them. I suspect that under our new way of doing things, alas and alack, it will be the mandarinate of the most heightened sort and the vice-chancellorian classes whom we will see decorating those Benches.
	I warmly welcome the opportunity to have this debate, and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, very much for promoting it.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? He made a most enjoyable and robust speech, but are we to deduce from this distinction between Tories and Conservatives that the latter are significantly to the left of the former?

Lord Patten: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord caught me just before I sat down. I was not suggesting that anyone whom the BBC or any other person in the media chooses to give the name Tory to is anything other than a Conservative. It is just that I believe that the Conservative Party has no reason to change its name. Why should we be linked with a lot of Irish robber barons from an island off the north-west coast of Northern Ireland? I speak as a left-footed Conservative and Unionist on this. I do not wish to be linked with these people. I am a Conservative through and through, as is my noble friend Lady Seccombe. I just prefer to be called Conservative rather than Tory or anything else.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gould mentioned the Internet. In preparing for this debate, I thought I would enter the words "political parties" into an Internet search engine. As noble Lords know, the more popular the website, the higher it comes on the search engine list. Well, I was surprised to see that the first 268 entries were about political parties as social gatherings—celebrations with a political theme. The reference to parties of people united in a cause, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, came after. I mention this because I think it says something about the status of political parties in public life today. So it is timely that we should debate this, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Chandos on moving this Motion.
	Those of us who came late to political life were probably as surprised as I was to find that people in politics were not as they are portrayed. People outside politics are rather cynical about politicians because they are often seen or portrayed to be on the make, power-hungry and corrupt. Such cynicism is transferred to political parties. This is not only dangerous, because only extremists gain from these attitudes, but also untrue. Most of the politicians whom I have met want to win power in order to serve—to serve the public and the public interest rather than to enjoy personal power and its trappings. Very few people rise to that level.
	It is unfortunate that political parties do not radiate this attitude of serving the public, not only because it is nearer the truth but also because it would deflect some of the cynicism and disenchantment about which many noble Lords have spoken.
	This is not the first time that I have been faced with this kind of problem. In the 1970s, my work was building up a business. Noble Lords will, I am sure, remember that at that time, people were equally cynical and disenchanted about businessmen—greed was good, creative accountancy was all the rage and for the sake of easy money, any businessman could be corrupted. But, as with politics and political parties today, the opposite was largely true. Of course there were a few corrupt businessmen, but most of us were trying to build up businesses which would serve society, our families and the economy. Somehow we had to express this in terms that meant something to ordinary people. So we invented—or, rather reinvented—corporate social responsibility. We formalised the things that most of us who ran a good business and had a social conscience did anyway. As a result, the position today is that banks, investors, financial institutions and the public consider a company's social attitudes alongside all the other judgments they make about it—its products, financial status, and so on. It seems to me that in order to play their full role, serve public life and defeat cynicism, political parties have to do something similar. There is a model here, because all the ingredients are there.
	First, let us take the people who are involved in politics and political parties. There is no lack of social responsibility there. I am amazed at the huge amount of voluntary work that these people do. They raise money for charity; they organise and help in the welfare of disabled and unfortunate people; they do voluntary work in churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as politics; they look after the environment; and they serve on boards and councils. There are 180,000 charities, according to my noble friend Lady Gould. Is not this a demonstration of social responsibility?
	The problem is that people do not know about these activities, even though they are very relevant to most people's everyday life and experience. Other noble Lords have spoken about the importance of this relevance.
	Curiously, our political parties seem to have lost this everyday relevance. There is a story about an MP who was canvassing in a tower block in Battersea. He decided to start at the top flat and work his way down. At the top flat he explained his party's policy on the euro, the NHS, funding universities and foreign policy, and then asked the voter if there was anything else he would like to know about. "What are you going to do to stop people urinating in the lift?", the voter asked. If political parties are to play a role in people's lives, they have to connect with people's lives. My noble friend Lord Chandos spoke about engagement, as did other noble Lords.
	This brings me to ideology. For organisations which are created around ideology, it seems extraordinary that political parties have handed over the creation of new policies and ideas to think tanks, NGOs and the media. We really have to win back this initiative. It is not easy because we have to win it back from organisations which have the luxury of campaigning on a single issue, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I agree with them that somehow political parties have to take the initiative in acknowledging that all these issues exist, but alongside each other.
	I think that political parties have to go back and reinvent some of their basics, as business had to do in the 1970s. They have to win back their reputation of defending basic freedoms such as liberty and justice. To many, it seems that other organisations and the media are there to protect these freedoms while political parties are there just to bicker over them. Surely political parties should be a lot more robust in contrasting our society, where we have these freedoms, with other societies which do not. It is just one more way of demonstrating our social responsibility instead of just taking it for granted.
	I know that for many people and many politicians the essential role of political parties is to organise well at an election. Nothing is more important for a politician than being in office—locally or nationally. However, that should not be to the exclusion of political parties demonstrating their social responsibility—demonstrating it through the voluntary and charitable work that political people undertake, by being socially aware and effective at all levels and by winning back the ideological initiative. That is how political parties will eventually play a much fuller role in public life. Otherwise, political parties will become social gatherings with a political theme.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for giving us the opportunity to draw the House's attention to the issue of public participation in politics, voter apathy, and the role of political parties in our society today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I also joined the youth wing of a political party many years ago. He alluded to the fact that in those years we had thousands of members. Times have changed. There is more television. There are more attractions for young people and more opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex.
	The 2001 elections marked a highly significant downturn in the numbers of people turning out to vote in Britain, and if public disillusionment over domestic and international events during this Parliament have been anything to go by, that is a problem that politicians have seriously failed to address and a trend that looks set to continue. Unlike the Americans, we do not live in a country that could be accused of having too much democracy. We ask our citizens to vote only in European, national and local elections, and the occasional referendum when issues of constitutional importance arise. We must therefore ask ourselves why voters are turned off by politics, what we can do to address the problem, and how we can ensure that our political parties play a positive role in society in every aspect of their interaction with the public. We should be mindful that such a process should naturally find its origins in this House, as we have the tradition of debating issues in the fullest and most constructive fashion.
	The end of the Cold War brought with it unexpected changes to the nature of the Western political party system, most notably in the United Kingdom and the United States. The distinctions or divisions between left and right became blurred. A third way emerged that often left political parties struggling to identify the key issues that distinguished them from each other, with voters becoming somewhat disengaged from the political process.
	One of the key findings of research into public opinion on the 2004 elections carried out by MORI on behalf of the Electoral Commission and published in September 2003 stated:
	"The widely reported voter apathy and disconnection seems to stem largely from the political process itself".
	It is my belief that the most negative side effect of that is that we frequently see debates and political contests between the main parties that are fundamentally based upon opportunism, and are driven by competition for votes as opposed to any deeply held ideological debate or belief on a point of principle.
	The immigration debate is a good example of that. We recently saw the Home Secretary taking the unusual step of calling for a truce with the Opposition over the issue. There are many issues in British politics that are far too delicate and fundamentally important to the public to be defined primarily by idiosyncratic party political interests. Consequently, there is a vacuum in British politics that can be filled by a more mature approach to political debate and policy formulation. The Government and the Opposition's handling of the Belfast agreement is a very good example of how the sting can be taken out of political debate for the benefit of political progress. There is no doubt that the public notice this, that such political action benefits the process greatly, and is of little or no harm to party politics.
	As far as foreign policy is concerned, we have only to survey the newspapers from the past few weeks to garner an idea of the damage that has been done to our prestige internationally and to the Government domestically, through their campaign in Iraq. In fact, if one lesson has been clearly learned from the past two years, it is that the British electorate will simply not swallow whatever line the Government churn out to promote a policy. The public will simply not accept that it is in our national interest to invade another country just because the Government say so. Neither will the public accept that such an invasion is an exercise in promoting democracy and democratic standards abroad. The weapons of mass destruction smokescreen fooled nobody and has consequently damaged the Prime Minister and this Government. Rather than having been seen to practise and promote an ethical foreign policy, the Government have been seen to have misinterpreted our national interests and caused our traditional interest and standing in the Middle East to suffer.
	This House should be in no doubt that many citizens have become disillusioned with the lack of participation in British politics that has been uppermost and apparent in recent years. It is clear that our political system does not take public opinion into consideration to the same extent as many of our European counterparts. We must remember that politicians are merely the representatives of the British citizenry and if we fail to exercise the general will of the population, we have failed them, failed the system, and failed ourselves.
	Political parties are society's role models and the sounding board for all the issues that influence and dominate people's lives. As such, political parties have an intrinsic duty to conduct politics in the most meaningful and constructive way possible. That means having honest debates about issues such as immigration, race relations and crime. The Government should start by paying more attention to what is said in this House on such issues, adjusting their policies on the basis of the needs and interests of the voters, and creating a progressive culture of political co-operation between parties when our national interests are at stake.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for giving us this opportunity for debate. I first want to take us away from concern with British politics or even the politics of developed countries and examine the role of political parties on a wider scale. If I have time, I will probably return to our own situation.
	The Prime Minister has launched his Africa commission. Many of us are interested in why Africa is not developed. Of the many analyses of development problems that we have heard—technical and economic problems, for example—we have now arrived at governance as an important missing ingredient. I argue that it is not governance that matters, but politics. Countries that do not have good politics cannot have good governance, and politics is supplied by political parties.
	If we look at the political and economic health of African countries, we see that what those countries lack is a political culture or political life. Very often they are one-party states, as my noble friend pointed out. They are also one-party states with very narrow membership and no tradition of political discussion. Few countries in Africa have succeeded in having multiple political parties. Even though some of those parties have been corrupt, the parties have kept each other on their toes. Parties correct each other—the party opposite always being holier than the party in government. That culture is necessary to establish good governance. It does not come out of technical reports or instrumental approaches; it comes out of the activities of citizens. Political parties are the mobilisers, the aggregators, of citizens' activities.
	One of the questions the commission should answer—if any of its members reads Hansard—is: what can we do to encourage healthy and rivalrous political life in Africa? The success of South Africa, for example, is largely due to the fact that the ANC has not become the only political party. However, in Zimbabwe, ZANU has swallowed up ZAPU. When that happens the quality of political life is lost.
	It is not that some of the political parties are vital to democracy but that political parties create the possibility of democracy. Looking at our own historical experience, we tend to believe that democracy has been here since 1066—or at least since 1832. But full adult franchise did not come until 1928 and political parties, especially mine, were instrumental in agitating for a broadening of the franchise. When political parties have worked for such a broadening and for protecting and establishing political freedoms and human rights, their countries have had a rich political life and good governance.
	We take those things for granted today. We have almost forgotten that mass democracy is a recent arrival on our shores. It is good to remember that because it is only when political parties have continuously worked for it, often in extra-parliamentary action, that conditions for good parliamentary democracy are created.
	The problem is that in many countries—not only in Third World countries but in Japan, Mexico, Italy and India—there is one-party dominance. If that party has a democratic culture, it manages to create a better democracy. The Congress Party in India is a good example of that. Even while it was the dominant party for approximately 40 years, and all the Prime Ministers came from that party, there was still a healthy democracy because within the Congress Party there was never dominance by a single faction or a single person. However, that did not happen in Mexico or Japan. Indeed, in Italy the Christian Democrats ended up as an extremely corrupt political party, causing all kinds of problems for that country.
	Therefore, we must look, first, for a system of political parties because there are multi political parties. If that is not the case, we must see whether whichever political party is dominant has diversity and rivalrous factions which might be able to guarantee a difference of opinion and challenge established positions because that will guarantee democracy.
	That brings me to voter apathy, mentioned by some noble Lords today. Political experience here and abroad shows that we need sharp differences both economically and socially, and perhaps ideologically, in order to establish a stable political party with a large membership. It is not just that ideology has extinguished, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, but that by and large class differences have vanished. We still talk the language of class, but in terms especially of a large working-class population which felt and behaved differently and whose consumption patterns were different from the middle-class, the reality is that class differences have disappeared due to increasing prosperity. So while people talk in terms of coming from such and such a region and of being a Geordie, a Scouser or whatever—having regional identifiers to distinguish themselves from each other—the class identifiers work less and less. They have to go back to their great grandfathers in order to claim their working-class origin.
	In a society which is increasingly homogeneous, in which there are few differences, it is hard to define political parties which would differ. All you have are alternate programmes of competent government, and competent government does not excite much interest. Whichever party is in power, the government will, by and large, be competent. No great crisis is likely, no matter who comes to power. There is no reason why citizens should say, "I'm going to join the party and improve the country", or, "My ambition is to establish a better region or nation". Therefore, we should not be surprised if that is the case. We should be happy that while citizens are apathetic, at least they are not hostile.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, particularly when he is in one of his philosophical moods. He epitomises the non-deferential society to which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, referred in opening and which government Whips will affirm as their experience of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
	For some it has been a nostalgic debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, reminded us of those wonderful days when the Young Conservatives was the greatest marriage bureau in the country. And he was wrong—it was unique because no other political party could match it. Furthermore, in my part of the country much Conservative recruitment depended on the fact that the Conservative clubs inevitably had the best snooker tables.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, subtly tried to emphasise his comparative youth by attributing the words, "He would, wouldn't he?" to Christine Keeler. Those of us who are old enough to have been around at the time know that that was Mandy Rice Davies. We certainly would not like to see that misattribution rest in Hansard. And we had a good old romp around BBC paranoia from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and we were all the better for it.
	But we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for the timeliness of the debate because the party machines are gearing up for 10 June. Those of us who will go out on the doorstep know what we will hear: "You're all as bad as each other"; "You're only in it for what you get out of it"; "I never vote". I have to tell your Lordships that when I receive those responses I make the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sound almost diplomatic. I do not accept them. I have been in politics for 40 years. It was said of Elizabeth Taylor that she must believe in the institution of marriage because she got married eight times. Well, I must believe in political parties because I have been in three of them. I have not found those responses to be the image of party activists because most are committed to their communities and beliefs.
	But there is a cynicism and an apathy, which is worrying. They were evident in the fall in party membership, the low turnout in elections and the lack of involvement by the young. As we all recognise, democracy needs active democrats to make it work and we need political parties to channel activism into public service. I am not as admiring of Cross-Benchers as the noble Viscount. I like many of them but I have never accepted that not having a party-political affiliation gives one some higher state of grace to opine on politics of the day. As has been emphasised, party politics makes our system work. It is often the party politicians who stand, as my noble friend Lord Shutt said, against extremism in places such as Burnley. It was the party politicians who took a stand when militant Trotskyism was abroad in the Labour Party.
	So how do we breathe fresh life into party politics? I am not sure that the answer lies simply in making it easier to vote. We have to ensure that these experiments and new systems are both corruption and intimidation-free. Anyway, I am old fashioned enough to see my active voting as a commitment and tribute to the sacrifices of those who went before me. For the time being at least, leave me with a stubby pencil. Every time I go to vote I think that I am benefiting from the sacrifices of the suffragettes and the Chartists and everyone else. Unless voting has some kind of civic commitment it becomes meaningless. That is why I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, about the need for better civic education in schools and why I pay tribute to the work done in that field over the years by the Rowntree trust. I think that there should be more informational programmes on television about how parties work.
	I am not sure that PR is the panacea that some of us thought it might be. The hard truth is that where it has been introduced it has not produced a dramatic increase in turnout. It is no worse than first-past-the-post elections, but thus far it has been no better. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, on state aid for political parties. I think that a lot of humbug and hypocrisy is talked about that issue. All the political parties have been taking state aid for well over 25 years and it is no use dressing it up in other words.
	I hope that the commission examining these issues will consider one matter. I think that funding could be most beneficial at the organisational level. Too often, party agents spend far too much time trying to increase their own salaries. If there were some pump priming perhaps at the organisational level which could be tied to the number of members or checked off against taxation or whatever, it would help to revitalise parties.
	I also think there should be another look at some of the absurd rules on funding at local level that we built into the political party funding Bill. Our debates on that legislation made it sound as though the post of local party treasurer was one of the prime offices of state for which any ambitious politician would reach. In fact, it is a damn difficult job. Now, with all the current sanctions, one could fall foul of the law by missing out on a report or failing to report rather small sums. The matter needs to be seriously reviewed to bring it into accord with the reality of running politics at local level.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, I think there should be a tight cap on individual and organisational donations. We must also retain the ban on television advertising—the corrupter of American politics.
	Party democracy is a fragile balance. If the party outside Parliament is too ambitious for power over elected members then that balance can get out of kilter. However, if a party of government or a parliamentary party gets out of touch with its grass-root membership its very support will begin to wither. There has to be a balance.
	When looking at political parties we also have to ask the question, "What, if not?". Without them we would see a far greater influence of extra-parliamentary bodies such as the press which so buffets our politicians. Mr Blair has said that he is much influenced by Mr Trevor Kavanagh and the Sun. All I can say is that the greatest of Labour Prime Ministers, Clem Attlee, used to read the Times, and only then for the cricket scores. One might think that Mr Blair would be a better Prime Minister if he adopted a similar attitude. There is no doubt that the culture of spin has debased British politics. I think that journalists themselves have a role in sustaining standards and our democracy.
	I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Those who are involved—the political activists—are not as self serving as the cynics say. Anyone like me who goes on the rubber chicken circuit on Friday nights will never cease to be in awe of the dedication of those who make up our political parties. I end with a quote from someone who was one of my earliest mentors and will certainly be known to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould—Dame Sarah Barker, national organiser of the Labour Party. She said:
	"The triumph of ideals must be organised".
	That is what political parties are, the triumph of ideals.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this important debate, which he introduced with a most thoughtful and interesting contribution. It has been a fascinating debate all round and gave me great pleasure. It appeared to me that all the speakers are proud and enthusiastic of their own parties.
	I enjoyed the contributions from both my noble friends. It is good to see my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree fully repaired and back in his usual ebullient form. I share his view of state funding of political parties. My noble friend Lord Patten brought us his usual flair and enthusiasm. I am delighted to join him in supporting my party as a Conservative.
	This is an unusual House. Only two-thirds of us wear political or party political labels, though we learntlast weekend that the number of political Peers is to increase by 37—even though the number of peerages assigned to the Cross Benches is slightly less than the 20 per cent that most of us, and particularly my noble friend Lord Patten, would wish to see as the absolute minimum.
	We are also unusual as a House in that, though we all care passionately for what we believe in, we are never aggressively partisan—perhaps I should say "almost never". Long may it stay that way.
	This cross-party courtesy illustrates a key point. Some see political parties as a threat. However, when they act with restraint, political parties can serve a body without altering its character or corrupting the institution as a whole. But the issue of restraint is crucial. Certainly, bad politics can corrupt. So-called politicisation of institutions that are not inherently political is almost always counterproductive, both for the institution and the political party. This is, I believe, one of the underlying reasons for the clear crisis of trust that now bedevils the present administration.
	We have seen increased politicisation of the Civil Service and increased power for unelected party appointees inside government departments and the ever growing number of quangos. We have seen increased use of party focus groups for setting national policy priorities. Perhaps that is why the priorities change so often. And, sadly, we have seen increased bypassing of Parliament as the place where, in any democracy, the conflicting wishes of the population are brought together, debated and, ultimately, peacefully reconciled—a process in which the political parties, which under our system are themselves broad coalitions, play an indispensable role.
	The Government sadly fail to see that any government are immeasurably stronger if they carry Parliament with them and do not try to act on party lines alone. No government have been more obsessed—or for long, so successful—in securing headlines for the party in power. But that has ended by being a self-defeating process. Over-politicisation of public life has bred cynicism; it has turned people off, and they simply feel let down.
	We must all acknowledge with sadness a growing perception that politicians and the political process have little to offer. At the last general election, turnout was a dismal 59 per cent. In next month's elections we shall be lucky in some areas if a quarter of the electorate actually turns out to vote. Some respond by ascribing blame to our electoral process. The Government and the Electoral Commission seem to fall over each other in thinking up ever more gimmicky plans, such as banning the traditional ballot box and using all-postal ballots with votes cast before an election is half under way; talk of Internet voting, as if a general election were some kind of Sky television poll; stopping local councils electing by thirds—a process which keeps them in active touch with local opinion; votes at 16; reducing the number of ward councillors and creating a new breed of highly paid regional assemblymen; the absurdity of three different electoral systems being used on one day, to the total confusion of London voters.
	Our electoral process has become a dog's breakfast in the past few years and, if we go on like this, will finish as a dog's dinner. All this is treating the symptoms, not the cause, and losing some very important elements along the way. I was proud of this House's sadly unavailing fight against closed lists in European elections. Closed lists are an abomination, taking choice of their representative away from the people and handing it to party bosses. I was proud, too, of our more recent battle, sadly also finally unavailing, to save the traditional polling station and ballot box in the north of England.
	Generations of people fought for the right to vote, at home and on many a foreign field. When a new democracy is born, as in South Africa, the most moving sight is always the patience and pride with which people queue to vote at polling stations. One of my earliest memories is going with my mother and grandmother when they voted. They understood the sacrifice that had been made to get women the vote, and they were determined to use it.
	The traditional ballot is secret, almost incorruptible and a protection against manipulation and abuse. When one steps into the polling booth to pick up that stubby pencil on a piece of string or one sees the votes tipped out on to the table for counting, one senses the awesome dignity of the democratic process. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that voting in person is a commitment. By all means use postal ballots—although I shudder to think, with the present state of the Royal Mail, how many ballot papers will arrive at all. But why ban what works so well? I simply do not understand it.
	I would like to see less fiddling about with the election process. I hope that the Electoral Commission will take note and that there is a return to dealing with the real cause of falling turnout. That is a manner of conducting politics that leaves people with a sense that what they think does not matter and that those in power will do whatever suits them at the time.
	It is easy to disparage political parties, but it is wrong. I am proud to speak as a member of the largest and oldest political party in Britain, whose membership is rising fast. But all political parties are great voluntary organisations. They must never become arms of the state—still less think that they own the state. They are vehicles for the hopes and ideals of millions.
	We should recognise what those who support and work for all the major political parties give our country in local councils, in work for voluntary bodies and in their concern for others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, I believe that those who join political parties are belongers and doers, but all my experience tells me that they belong and do, not for themselves, but for what they believe their ideals can do for others. I hope that the cynical manipulation at the top that we have seen in the last few years and which has so disappointed thousands of members and former members of the Government's own party will prove a passing aberration. I hope that political parties can again be viewed as they were in the past—as a vehicle for hundreds of thousands of often very different people to come together to work for what they all believe is a better future for this great country.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is good to have the opportunity to respond to the House and to my noble friend Lord Chandos on this issue, in drawing attention to the role of parties in public life. At one level, what is striking is that the role of parties in liberal democracies in our society now is almost exactly the same as it has been for at least the past 150 years or so, since the progressive move towards universal suffrage from the 1860s onwards.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it at its best with that lovely quotation that the triumph of ideals must be organised. That is, above all, what political parties have had as one of their central aims: the articulation of a vision and of the debate in public life around sets of ideas. Clearly, the subsidiary role of parties has been to organise campaigns, recruit candidates, provide the building blocks for government, define political career paths and, not least, to recruit potential political players at local and national level. Those are the classic roles of political parties in liberal democracies. They have been for 150 years, and they are still the characteristics that we see today.
	Parties dominate the organisation of local, national and European elections in Britain—in the United Kingdom—in ways that they have never done before. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was quite right to point out that local government elections, which at least nominally in the past in large part appeared to be non-party political, are mostly party politically run.
	What is the problem? Is there a problem? The conundrum—although I am not certain that it is a problem—is that the roots of parties on any objective measure are weaker and thinner than they once were. By roots I mean the scale of their membership and the numbers of activists, and the degree to which the population at large identifies itself with those parties as a defining characteristic of its own personal identity. That is what has changed. Clearly the membership no longer funds parties in any substantial way, although it makes contributions; it is not the dominant funding source, as the party arithmetic shows.
	Parties are no longer the main vehicle for governance. All governments have to govern with and through interest groups, public consultation processes and expert advice. It is not something that one does directly with the mass membership of the partnership with the party, although it plays a role. Membership of the party is no longer the crucial or central communication vehicle for the national party with the public. Membership is not irrelevant but, clearly, mass media is the central vehicle by which all national parties seek to get their message across.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, helpfully pointed out, we should not be totally narrow and insular in our perspective in this debate, although the debate has naturally enough tended to focus on the United Kingdom. In Britain, that point apart, we are left with one question: why has membership declined and does it matter for liberal democracy? At one level, I would suggest that functions of parties nationally are the same as they have always been, and that they have been remarkably successful at adapting themselves to the loss of membership while still being able to fulfil the classical functions.
	So why has membership declined, and does it matter? It is not that the role of politics has collapsed. From about 1973 to about now, there is a drop of about 60 per cent to 50 per cent, if I recollect the figures correctly. There is a drop, but that is not a complete collapse. The arguments have been touched on by a number of noble Lords—by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others—that it is true that we are less class based and ideologically based and we define ourselves less in party terms. There is weaker ideological identification. One way of putting that is that the public has a life outside party politics. People have such a range of interests and options, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, pointed out, that membership of a political party is in competition with a range of other opportunities. Who are we as politicians to say that our obsession is more important than their obsessions with golf or whatever?
	This is speculation rather than evidence based, but I think that the other reason is that parties are less life-critical to people than they would have been in the past. If one reflects on what it felt like to be unemployed in Britain in the 1920s, it was your party that gave you hope. It was your party that gave you the prospect that you would not continue to be unemployed, that your children would not be hungry and that if they got ill, they might not die as a result of the lack of education. I have just sufficient imagination to perceive that if I were a small property owner in a rural part of Britain in the 1920s I might have felt threatened by what I would have seen as political extremism and the threat of revolution in society in Britain. We are not in that world any longer. Parties are not our routes to salvation or perdition. We have a more consensual society and a wealthier society. That does not mean to say that what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, defined as the "articulation of hopes, values and visions" is any less important but it is a more complex process of debate. Those are some speculations on why membership might have declined but I have not seen much detailed research to substantiate them.
	Is membership decline a problem? The point I touched on is that all three of the parties have had the most remarkable decline in membership over the past 10 or 20 years. If one looks at the graph of the decline and projects it forward the amusing conclusion is that in about 10 years' time there will be no members left. Fortunately it does not work like that. But the decline in mass membership of all three parties is one of the characteristics of democracy in this society. What is striking is that the parties still seem to be able to continue to perform the classical roles of parties that other noble Lords articulated earlier on. The parties appear to have found other sources of funding. There are clearly issues and worries about the exposure of parties to funding from donors and what donors might expect, or might be perceived by the public to expect, as a consequence of their donations. Clearly parties have also adapted to the fact that they have to communicate using the media because there are not many other vehicles for them to use. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke on that. I did not share her view about what the leadership of the Labour Party has done in that respect, but that will not surprise her.
	Clearly there is an issue—the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, touched on it—that if parties are incapable of getting enough interest in their activities to field candidates, we are in deep trouble. Although we have not, as yet, seen that at national level, we have certainly seen it at local level. Many the friendship that has been broken in the past by one friend saying to another, "Please stand—we really must have somebody in this seat but you have no hope of winning, and you are perfectly safe", only to find that the candidate is elected and condemned to perdition or a joyful experience, depending on the point of view, for the next four years. So there are some areas of worry.
	That apart, parties still seem to manage to fulfil these functions, despite the decline in membership. There is one area where we have seen that they have not been able to continue, because of the lack of mass membership: they are no longer the force for social cohesion at a local level that they were historically in many communities and societies. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave one of the nicest examples of that and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, also referred to it as the contribution of nominal membership of political parties to relationship building and other forms of activity through the Young Conservatives. If we have seen any decline in party political membership, the decline and collapse of the Young Conservatives' membership is the true social horror of our time. My God, how are people finding partners in rural Britain from now on? But they seem to be getting by.
	I do not think that the nature of the problem is particularly clear. It is complex, which makes the debate about what we should do much more difficult. The first point that I would mark is that the stance of political parties towards the fact that the electorate do not seem to want to engage—to imply the electorate must change—is the route to hell, as we all know. If the politics are not with us, parties have to change, rather than the politics. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us—some of us might have forgotten—that there is the alternative route of changing party, but that is a sub-plot to this, although I recognise the genuineness of that process.
	A lot has been happening on funding. Two things have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. There is already a substantial amount of funding going in, both for policy formation—so it should—and to support the parliamentary process, as it also should. Why should people be forced to suffer from being active participants in the process of parliamentary democracy or parties be starved of making creative contributions to policy and political thinking? Clearly, a lot has been done, I would assert, by this Government to try to make the funding of political parties more transparent and cleaner. We accepted the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and were glad that we did so. It is important that the public do not believe that there is any reality behind allegations of, or concerns about, sleaze.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, we must be concerned if any party member is disqualified, or is deterred from taking a role in public life, as a result of being tarred with being a crony or as a result of being seen as a political appointee. That would be lamentable because it would mean that some of the most talented people in our society, from all parties, might be deterred. Perhaps people have to be rough and tough and big enough to take a bit of the rubbishing that one sometimes get from the national media and still take on these roles.
	Is there a case for more funding? In a sense, we have to be clear about for what, for whom and by what mechanism. I am not going to say more than that, although it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. The Electoral Commission will report on this in the summer and that will give us plenty of opportunity to have a further, informed debate on that issue.
	Should we change the electoral system? It is not clear that changing the electoral system would increase party membership or increase turnout. If those are the problems, it is not self-evident. Other arguments are advanced for PR, but the evidence does not support it to address the issues that we have been talking about. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. If we were to change the voting system, what would change in time would be the political parties because they have to adapt to the voting system, otherwise they are in trouble. But that is to go round in a circle. I do not think that changing the electoral system would alter interest in politics or trust in politicians. If it is to be argued, it must be on other grounds.
	I thought that one of the most creative arguments I heard this evening about what should be done to address these issues was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It was basically that it is lonely being in a party of one—self-evidently it must be true—and therefore people should pay attention to that and create a second Green. I am sure that those who think on these matters will have noted the comment but I would not advise him to hold his breath immediately.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about a more mature political debate is right. The extent to which the public think that politicians conduct debate about complex issues only in slogans, slang and simplifications, has an insidious effect over time on their belief in politics and in party politics and the contribution of party politics to our society. I acknowledge with gratitude the way in which he affirmed the presentation of the Belfast agreement in that respect but will duck what he said about Iraq, for reasons that he will understand.
	Although the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, alleged it—and I would be happy to have evidence of it at another time—I do not think that I have seen either academically or in my own direct experience any evidence of the increased politicisation of the Civil Service. I have been seriously impressed as a Minister with the commitment to proper governmental processes and democratic processes by our civil servants, while also being a critic of their experience. It does civil servants an injustice to claim that they have been susceptible to, or influenced by, politicians in that respect. I have not seen it and I hope that I may never see it.
	The only other thought I would leave is the following: if the public do not want to join political parties, why should they? That probably says something about how both political parties and government have to change their behaviour. You can no longer use the party machine or the party membership as your vehicle for debate and involvement; you have to find other means of involving and understanding where the public are in the formation of policy. By that I mean that government—and it is more difficult at national than at local level—have to have processes during the process of policy making and draft legislation of engaging vigorously with a variety of opinions in society and they should have the debate often, in public and private, around those elements of policy that concern people.
	I refer to interest groups, voluntary organisations and different forms of association of the public, which is where the public choose to put their allegiances and identification. It is a fact of life that politicians and governments have to learn to use those new identifications of the public as ways of involving them in governance and in understanding how best to shape policy and to set out an agenda and legislation.
	We have had a fascinating debate; at least, I have found it fascinating. We have marked that there is a significant shift in the way that parties behave and perform but not in their fundamental roles. Some interesting issues were discussed about how they sustain activists and how they sustain their funding, but I did not hear anyone say that there is a single magic bullet that we all should look to to change the scene that we have painted. That is why I welcome continuing debate about these issues. I believe that we have another one next week and no doubt we will have others as the Electoral Commission and others stimulate us to think about how we shape the operations of a liberal democracy in our society, and the contribution that party politics make to that.

Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in thanking all noble Lords who have spoken today, I can say only that the debate has proved to be everything I hoped it would be. I have been corrected on my memory of the difference between Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice Davies, for which I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as I was for his reminder of the eight husbands of Elizabeth Taylor.
	I worked out that if you aggregated the number of parties to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I have belonged—never, I believe, one at the same time—I believe that we just about match Elizabeth Taylor, although if I am allowed to claim at least two different Labour parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, suggested, I think that we exceed it.
	The unpredictability of party politics was certainly demonstrated when I found myself a more fervent advocate of electoral reform for Westminster than the Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, have indicated a wish to speak in the debate in the gap on the Unstarred Question for the usual maximum of four minutes. On that basis there should just about be ample time, but I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind in the length of their speeches.

Food Labelling

Lord Morris of Manchester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to combat misleading food labelling and to promote healthy eating, especially in children.
	My Lords, my principal purpose this evening is to draw attention to the serious health hazards of misleading food labelling—not least the avoidable chronic illnesses and preventable disabilities it can inflict on children—and the urgent need for stronger safeguards.
	Noble Lords know of my interest in chronic illness and disability as the first Minister for Disabled People from 1974–79 and before then, as a Private Member, the author and promoter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That interest alone makes the health hazards of misleading food labelling an issue of deep concern to me. It explains, too, my work to reduce the daunting difficulties—and dangers—faced by over 2 million visually impaired people in trying to cope with labelling that totally ignores their existence.
	The presence of my noble friend Lord Warner is most welcome. He was a promising young official at the then Department of Health and Social Security when I was a Minister. His duties often involved him in work on ministerial speeches. Now he makes them and I much look forward to hearing him wind up the debate with all his customary care, courtesy and social commitment.
	To be fair to him—and not everyone is always fair to Ministers—he has direct ministerial responsibility only in the Department of Health, but in answering questions in your Lordships' House he must answer for the Government as a whole including—which is never easy, even for its own Ministers—the termites of the Treasury. Many departments are involved in issues that will be addressed in this debate. One is the energy imbalance that results from eating too much and exercising too little, in which the Departments for Education and Skills, and for Culture, Media and Sport—no less than the Department of Health—have an interest.
	All three departments were involved in the launch last week of the Government's major new "keep fit, not fat" campaign for increased physical activity to tackle what was described as:
	"the 'couch potato' culture now consuming the nation".
	It was stated also that:
	"physical inactivity and obesity cost the country more than £10 billion a year".
	And there was a call for:
	"immediate action to halt an epidemic of chronic diseases".
	Yet some 200 school sports grounds have been sold off even since the Government introduced measures specifically designed to halt sales in December 1998. Ministerial consent was refused in only six cases. Thousands of playing fields have gone. London alone has lost the equivalent of seven Hyde Parks of green recreational space since 1989, while Sport England rarely uses its virtual veto over playing field sales.
	That is just one reason for growing public concern about the want of a properly co-ordinated and credible response to the "keep fat, not thin" way of life that misleading food labelling now so powerfully encourages. Another reason for that concern is that, while the Chief Medical Officer rightly described childhood obesity in his annual report of 2002 as,
	"a public health time-bomb",
	waiting to explode, its prevalence has continued to rise and the time-bomb ticks dangerously on. Meanwhile teachers and parents alike ask why the weighing and health checks that used to be a regular feature of school life no longer happen. Members of Parliament ask how it is that Finland, which in the 1980s had an obesity rate twice as high as ours, now has a rate of 11 per cent compared to Britain's 22 per cent. Religious leaders ask why policy-making so often assumes that low-income families have the same freedom as others to choose healthy eating. And people generally ask why so many policy decisions are taken ad hoc and are seemingly unrelated to an overall strategy. Are we, some ask, creating, as it were, an "ad hocracy" where policy is made on the hoof?
	I have two other interests in this debate. Within days of entering the House of Commons, 40 years ago, I joined Fred Peart at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as his Parliamentary Private Secretary and stayed with him there until, in 1968, he became Leader of the House. In those four years I learned much about food policies that still influences my thinking today. Time was, not long before then, when we had a Minister of Food with a seat in the Cabinet. Now food no longer appears even in any ministerial title and that, I fear, is one reason why proper co-ordination seems lacking.
	My other interest in the debate, which I declare with pride, is that of lifelong membership of the Co-operative movement. I have held its highest elective office as President of the Co-operative Congress and chaired, in 2001–02, the Review Board that created the Co-operative Group (CWS) Limited—the world's biggest consumer co-operative. Having just read the group's annual report for 2003, I rejoice now in the many achievements of its first two full years.
	Two other former Congress Presidents are here with me this evening: my good and noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe. They will be mindful, as I am, that several of our predecessors in that distinguished office also served in your Lordships' House. I think the earliest of them—his identity still surprises some noble Lords—was the Earl of Rosebery who presided over the Co-operative Congress held in Glasgow in 1890, four years before becoming Liberal Prime Minister.
	I know my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe share my admiration for the lead which our movement—notably the Co-operative Group—takes in protecting shoppers from unscrupulous food labelling. That leadership reflects a tradition of ethical trading that goes all the way back to its birth in Rochdale in 1844. It was in response to grossly unethical trading that the Co-operative movement was born. And the abuse of consumers by unscrupulous food labelling today, although far more subtle, is hardly less culpable than that perpetrated in Rochdale 160 years ago.
	Among the damaging health effects of misleading consumers about the contents of the food they buy, none is more worrying than the relentless rise in the prevalence of obesity. Data from the Department of Health show that more than half of UK adults are now officially overweight or obese. In the past decade obesity has doubled. It now affects more than 15 per cent of adults, 10 per cent of 6 year-olds and 20 per cent of 15 year-olds. On average it cuts life expectancy by nine years and 50 per cent of people now obese have at least one associated health problem: heart disease, stroke, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, degenerative joint diseases and some cancers. If the current trend continues, one quarter of the population will be obese by the end of the decade.
	In a recent article Sir John Krebs, who chairs the Food Standards Agency, wrote:
	"The kids on their way to school at the end of my road in Oxford are eating their breakfast as they go: a can of cola, a large confectionery bar and a bag of crisps. There couldn't be a more graphic illustration of the problem with many children's diets: too much sugar, salt and fat and too many empty calories".
	Children are, he says,
	"bombarded with messages encouraging them to eat foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar",
	and, he says,
	"nothing is not an option in facing the challenge this presents".
	The Co-operative movement did not wait for any official prompting to act in exposing unethical and unscrupulous practices in the promotion and advertising of food. Over the past seven years—starting before the FSA existed—it has published a trilogy of reports: Lie of the Label, Lie of the Label 2 and Blackmail. Taken together they constitute the most devastating critique of deceptive and dishonest food labelling yet published.
	The impact of the trilogy on informed and influential opinion testifies to its status. The first two reports won the support of the Consumers Association in Food labels, the hidden truth and in the FSA's Consumer attitudes to food standards. Their impact was further increased by NOP research and the report of a survey of the marketplace which quotes a label bearing the legend:
	"80 per cent fat free crisps".
	Shown the label, 61 per cent of NOP's respondents said it was a low-fat product. In fact, it was almost all fat and, when told the truth, 80 per cent said that such claims should be unlawful.
	The trilogy as a whole won praise from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, then a health Minister. He praised also the extent to which the Co-operative movement's precepts were matched by performance, as exemplified by its clear and comprehensive labelling and commitments:
	"to avoid direct marketing and advertising to children of products high in fat, sugar or salt (where products contain above 20, 10 or 1.25 grams per 100 grams respectively);
	"not to advertise high-fat, sugar and salt products in specific children's titles or adjacent to children's pages in newspapers;
	"not to give free samples, or promote by demonstration in stores, any high-fat, sugar and salt products aimed specifically at children;
	"not to use high-profile character merchandising in stores to promote high-fat, sugar and salt products aimed at children;
	"not to display child-targeted products which are high in fat, sugar or salt at supermarket checkouts, where children may exert 'pester power' while queuing with parents to pay for grocery shopping;
	"and clear labelling of dental health warnings on high-sugar products, such as sweets and soft drinks, across all appropriate Co-op brand goods".
	All of these and other Co-operative commitments—and I am grateful to Dr Christine Humphreys of the Co-operative Group for updating me on them and for all her other help—featured in the FSA's 2003 options paper as elements that could be adopted in a code of practice for responsible promotion of food to children and parents.
	For the good of child health, it is crucially important for food labelling to be clear, readily understandable and governed by effective legislation. But that is not happening now, and shoppers are left in the dark about how much fat, sugar and salt are in the products they eat and give to their children. Yet many household names among the producers of chocolate, sweets and soft drinks now hide the truth, making any meaningful attempts to achieve a balanced diet impossible.
	Hiding the truth is one of seven "deadly sins" documented in the Co-operative critique of food labelling. Others are: the use of meaningless terms to enhance a product's name, such as "wholesome" and "natural"; clever photography to mislead shoppers about actual contents; over-claims such as dried pasta "free from preservatives" when none is allowed; detail of what is not in products instead of what is; and the use of poor contrast and small font, making important ingredient information hard to find and read even for people with 20:20 vision and mocking the plight of the visually impaired.
	Taken together, these economies with the truth alone make a formidable case for more effective legislation. Before saying any more about sinning, however, I turn to a striking example of virtue: namely, Britain's "first" in creating the technology to Braille the packaging of retail goods. While, as we have seen, many strive hard to hide vital information from sighted people, this Co-operative achievement is now making it clearly available to people who are blind.
	The new technology was recognised by many prestigious awards. It has since been shared with the industry as a whole, facilitating the application of Braille to an ever-increasing range of consumer goods. This also demonstrated that, while the development process was long, time-consuming and costly, it was not undertaken for commercial gain but rather as an expression of social responsibility and human concern.
	This debate was thought likely to take place close to publication of the Government's Food and Health Action Plan, which was expected from the Department of Health last week. It has been postponed and I am sure that my noble friend will want to explain why and let us know as much as can now be said about the document. I have sought to show by detailing the widely practised dishonesties still permitted by labelling legislation that stronger legislation is urgently needed to protect consumers. While postponement of the plan's publication is extremely disappointing, at least it enables contributors to this debate to make their suggestions for what it should include, and I am sure there will be no shortage of them.
	For my part, I hope most of all that the Government will be seen to have been listening to the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council—chaired with such distinction by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for six years—and other widely respected bodies, as well as by ethical traders like the Co-operative Group which show, day by day, that it is not incompatible with commercial success. I am reminded this evening of Mark Twain's remark that,
	"a lie can be half way round the world before truth has got his boots on".
	I hope soon to see the Government challenging that advantage with stronger safeguards in their action plan. I know that my noble friend will do his best to sustain that hope in this debate.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Morris. He speaks from the heart, from his experience and from his roots. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his place because he has the same kind of background as outlined by my noble friend Lord Morris. I declare an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative Group. Like my noble friend Lord Morris, I shall refer to certain events.
	My noble friend Lord Morris mentioned 1844. Those who know the movement and the Rochdale pioneers will also pay tribute to the Rochdale principles. One of them was to have no adulterated goods. It took me a long time to find out what "adulterated" means. I did not believe it was a dirty word, but adulteration, watering down, giving tea and sugar something they should not have, something impure, was the bane of the working classes in times past. One of the principles on which the co-operative movement was started was to abolish adulteration.
	I take the view that, in this short debate, we are taking part in a campaign to raise the awareness of the public to the dangers if we do not change our eating habits. Years ago one of the jobs that I had in the Co-operative Group was as education secretary in a society called Enfield Highway. I was very proud and very happy. That was in the early 1950s and living in Hertford was a man called Caspar Brook. He was the main inspirer for the creation of the Consumers' Association and the magazine Which?
	I like to believe that I was in at the beginnings of the stirrings of the movement which still tries to alert people. One of my jobs in organising conferences and providing speakers for the Women's Guild and other organisations was to look at what was then a new-fangled idea called consumer education. Not many people did that. I had to arrange exhibitions and demonstrations concerned with meat and I arranged for the local Co-operative Group butcher to explain that one can go into a shop and be lackadaisical or one can know what to look for and what to ask for. Then the fruit and vegetable manager would talk about fruit and vegetables and their value in a diet.
	My noble friend Lord Morris quite rightly paid proper attention to the work of the co-operative movement which, for a long time, was alone in pioneering such care and concern about what we ate. That is not still the case, as most of the Co-operative Group's competitors, whom I shall not mention for obvious reasons—I do not want to give them any advertising—have learned over the past 50 years that, besides taking money over the counter, there is value to a commercial organisation in paying attention to how it buys and what it sells, which is very good.
	In this place I am experienced in realising and sensing that we serve a purpose. When I returned from New Zealand six years ago, I had a DVT, which I had not heard of—thrombosis. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I spoke in a debate—the Minister was the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am satisfied that it was as a result of my alertness and awareness that the House created a Select Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and upon which sat such eminent people as my noble friend Lord Winston, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others. That committee reported.
	Only in the past few days I have read in the newspapers that airlines recognise that the seat pitch—the distance between the seats—which under the Warsaw convention need be only 26 inches, but traditionally was 28 inches, now has to be 31 and 32 inches. They are now voluntarily moving the seats. I notice that British Airways is being very good. In recognising those who seek to take it to court for dereliction in respect of deaths occurring from this condition it has moved some way to make matters less difficult. I make that point.
	I see my noble and good friend Lord Brookman in his place. He helped to initiate me. I went to a reception on the terrace a few months ago to listen to a group I had never heard of called the Celiac gluten-free movement. I have a store of other experiences. I think the lady was from Wolverhampton. She told me about the blight on her life borne out of a condition over which she literally had no control and of her need to be careful. She taught me a little more about reading labels. That is what the debate is about.
	I have made a list of other groups that I have attended besides the groups in the House for DVT, diabetes, prostate, dystrophy and heart. I attend them all because I have conditions from which I suffer, survive and manage within the context of them all. The point I want to make is that as we grow older and become more susceptible to the onset of serious conditions we need to be very careful about what we eat.
	I am very pleased that my noble friend has raised this issue, which allows us to say a few words in support. I think the establishment of the Food Standards Agency was a beacon in this respect. I do not claim credit for party or for organisation. There has been a gradual movement and recognition over the years. Certainly, more and more people recognise that one can very easily make a wrong purchase when one goes to the supermarket or to the market.
	One phenomenon these days is to walk down the street and find that everyone seems to have a sore ear. What they are doing is listening to their mobiles. When one goes into a supermarket one finds a lot of people not simply grabbing stuff off the shelves but actually looking at the labels. From the information I have read, I am very taken by the fact that there are the big four and then there are the little four. The big four, as far as content is concerned, is information relating to energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat. One needs to understand what the ingredients are and to be able to read them. The others are sugars, saturates, fibre and sodium.
	Very often one finds that manufacturers in a misleading way give on a label only the big four and not the little four. They pick and choose. The discerning shopper is the person who is prepared to spend a little time and sometimes perhaps a little money.
	When I went to my diabetic clinic and saw the dietician, she drew my attention to a fact. She asked, "Do you like marmalade?" I said, "Yes, I like marmalade". She asked, "What kind do you have?" Of course I said, "The Co-op's if I can get it". She said, "Well, you know marmalade is made especially for diabetics". I did not know that. I was glad I was told. Therefore, even if sometimes I do not eat it, I know that it is there.
	I have another illustration. My family has always drunk evaporated milk. It is a tradition. Evaporated milk is very heavy on fat, but most manufacturers have light evaporated milk or an evaporated milk that has been produced in such a way that the difficult contents are marginally reduced.
	There is a lot of advice about. I am of course delighted at the part that the co-operative movement has played and is playing in these matters. No one will achieve a breakthrough. The figures that my noble friend Lord Morris gave for obesity are compelling and real. No one has an interest in maintaining that—even the people who produce the products, such as crisps, fizzy drinks and so on. They do not have an interest in watching the purchasers of their goods die earlier than they need. It needs a concerted campaign.
	I know that the Government—as well as many others; but I talk about this Government, of whom I am proud to be a part—have a responsibility to support both agencies and organisations whose job it is to make people alert and aware. Here endeth the first lesson.

Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on initiating this debate on this vital subject. Before it escapes my mind, my noble friend Lord Graham referred to diabetic marmalade and diabetic foods in general. I have the misfortune to suffer from that disease, and that specific diabetic food is not recommended, because it can have a devastating impact on some parts of the anatomy. Only some suffer from that: my noble friend Lord Graham obviously does not.
	I was chairman of the Co-operative Group and its predecessor, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, for about 11 years. Clearly, anything that I have to say in my brief comments this evening will focus on the co-operative movement's involvement in healthy food and eating of recommended diets.
	I suggest that there are three key ways in which retail activities can support broader nutritional strategies and therefore encourage activity to address obesity. Those include the formulation of own brands—especially, in this case, Co-op brand products—and how those products are marketed. That is a broad area that may encourage proper product labelling, merchandising and advertising. In addition, the Co-op's role within communities enables supportive nutritional education via stores in the form of labelling, leaflets and websites in the various communities within which we operate. Clearly, education has a major part to play by providing information on the website, in pamphlets and leaflets in stores and by other means of communication.
	My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Graham referred to the dangers, and I shall not elaborate on them, except by stating that obesity contributes to a number of life-threatening diseases. Indeed, diabetes is now being diagnosed in many adolescents, with a devastating impact on the remainder of their lives. So it has an impact at an early stage that endures for a considerable time—indeed, until their demise.
	In 1995, the Co-operative movement challenged its suppliers to reduce the amount of fat and salt in its own-brand products to help to achieve nutritional taskforce targets. Progressively, that has reduced levels of both in a range of products, with that work continuing. But it is difficult for a single retailer to make an impact because products are geared to maximum production, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, and producing one-off products for a specific retailer often does not make sense for a major manufacturer.
	In addition to its standard range, the Co-op provides a wide range of healthier alternative products. The clear, distinctive logo helps consumers to choose healthier alternatives. Strict nutritional criteria apply to those products, supported by on-pack claims. A maximum of 3 per cent fat applies to all ready-made meals in the range.
	There is still a long way to go on honest labelling. There is a clear need for comprehensive and well-presented labelling that sets the standard for the industry. Calorie and salt content are indicated on the front of all Co-op brand label products. No other retailer does that at present. However, I am confident that the experience of the Co-operative movement will help to encourage other retailers to follow that path. Products are described as having high, medium or low fat content, but that can be extremely confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to that fact. What precisely is low fat? In some extreme cases, it could mean around 50 per cent fat content.
	The Co-op has highlighted dietary issues through public campaigns, identifying sources of poor diet and opportunities for improvement. Our 1997 report, The Plate of the Nation, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, raised the nature of diet generally and intensified debate on the topic. That was followed by The Lie of the Label, which addressed a range of labelling activities that might hinder consumer appreciation of the nature, composition and nutritional make-up of products. It also identified clear approaches to support positive steps that provide clear consumer information on labels, helping them to make informed choices that support their dietary needs. The expression "informed choices" is important, as it highlights the deficiency of proper, honest and simple advice on food content. Let us be straightforward: it is sensible, not patronising, to say that that often applies, perhaps to a harassed housewife with several children, operating on a budget and with neither the time, energy nor sometimes the inclination to understand food labels.
	In 2002, we advocated a bolder route to the provision of such information through labelling, following consumer research into the value that they gained from nutrition information on many different types of pack and different brands. As outlined in The Lie of the Label II, that identifies potential opportunities for development of labelling formats that would provide greater clarity of information for consumers, therefore supporting improved access to a more balanced diet.
	The Co-op Group has recently acquired the convenience store chain Alldays, adding 600 stores to its portfolio—a good acquisition. We found that Alldays concentrated on newspapers, tobacco, cigarettes and a high proportion of foods that could not be regarded as particularly healthy. It is a mammoth task to convert those stores into ones that have some consideration for dietary points. We actively support the Department of Health initiative to encourage people to eat a minimum of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. One might say that that is common sense, but there are still substantial depths of ignorance about food.
	When I reread what I had typed out this afternoon, frankly some of it sounded a bit holier than thou. I would not want it to be interpreted as being holier than thou. I do not want to sound in the least sanctimonious or self-righteous when I talk about the Co-operative Group's initiatives in this field. They contribute greatly to the nation's health and to its economy. Neither do I want to see us become a nanny state and adopt attitudes such as, "the man in Whitehall knows best". We do not need to attack that philosophy, because it does not exist. I hope that it never does exist, but we could attack it through better information and education.
	I am of a sedentary disposition, despite in my younger days playing a respectable game of golf and an average game of squash. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to the importance of exercise, and I was going to refer also to the disposal of a number of playing fields over the past few years, which is really depressing news. All kinds of sport, individual sports and team sports, should be encouraged so it should be a dual attack on bad health, based on good exercise and a sensible diet.
	Finally, on a domestic point, our catering facilities in this House might well be reviewed from time to time to try to ensure that they encourage your Lordships to have a healthy diet.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, I beg leave to speak in the gap. This is another occasion when the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. The effort that he puts into what I call worthy causes is remarkable. If this had been a football match—we were talking about sport a moment ago—the score at half time would be the Co-op four, Sainsbury's and the others nil. It looks that way so far.
	I declare two interests. I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, co-chair of the newly formed all-party coeliac group, which works closely with Coeliac UK, and I am pleased to be doing that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I knew nothing about this disease—it is called a disease—until it struck home, so to speak. Then I took an interest. I have a grandson who is on a dairy-free diet, and that is common across the country these days. In our family, food and healthy eating is a keen subject.
	I will concentrate on coeliac disease. This disease is one of the most common chronic, childhood diseases, unknown to many of the public, with a prevalence of one in 100. There are studies showing that. Coeliac disease is life-long, and therefore affects one in every 100 adults. I am beginning to improve my knowledge of the subject. This disease is caused by allergies to wheat, barley and rye. Some have a problem with oats. Remaining on a gluten-free diet is the only way that they can survive and continue a normal life.
	There must be many thousands of sufferers of this disease in the country who are unaware of it. The symptoms are weight loss, diarrhoea and, in the case of children, failure to thrive with consequential poor growth. I am here this evening because I want to see the clear listing of all ingredients on food labels, as it is of vital importance. It is necessary that any gluten-containing ingredients are clearly identified to consumers. There has been some improvement, and the Minister may refer to that. More needs to be done, so that people are aware of what they buy. Shopping can be difficult.
	Enforcement of the European Directive 2003/89/EC on allergen labelling in foods is imperative. We need the adoption of that safe, realistic standard for gluten-free products, as we do across a wide range of products, which can be enforced by UK enforcement officials.
	Finally, there is, in my view, a need for more research and awareness. I hope that the Minister will address that. More serious research and awareness would assist in what we are debating today. We need better, more effective and more informative labelling that, in the long run, would be of enormous benefit to our society and the people of this country.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, beg leave to speak in the gap. My reason for speaking briefly in the debate is because on my way to your Lordships' House my taxi driver asked me what was going on here today. I told him about this debate. He told me that one of his children has a serious allergy to nuts. It is so serious that the parents have to carry two syringes of adrenaline in case their boy becomes seriously ill.
	My taxi driver told me that there should be a national campaign to make children, restaurants, hotels, food manufacturers, schools and everyone aware of the dangers of serious allergies, which can be life-threatening. Not enough is written on menus in restaurants and in food shops about food and sweets that are free from, for example, nuts and wheat germ. Far more research should be carried out. Supermarkets should promote healthy, clean food and drink. Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that some children who have food allergies have a deficient gene?
	I have a diabetic husband. Diabetes should be avoided at all costs. It causes numerous complications. But the worrying situation is that diabetes is on the increase. It is a serious problem, particularly among the Asian population. I congratulate the Government on trying to promote fruit in schools. More healthy, well-labelled food and drink should be available that is suitable for diabetics and others, including in your Lordships' Dining Room.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for raising this issue again in your Lordships' House. He is certainly an example of a campaigner. He has raised this issue time and again. But I wonder whether by now he feels a sense of frustration at the lack of progress in this area.
	Certainly, on looking back at the debates in your Lordships' House in 2002 and 2003 in which I have taken part, we have said many of the same things that have been said today: I wonder whether the Minister's response will be similar. If I had had a wish, it might have been that the question posed to Her Majesty's Government asked what steps they have taken to combat misleading food labelling, to which I shall address the substance of my speech.
	First, I turn to a few points made by other speakers. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about the social divide between lower-income families and those that are better off. Perhaps it is clearest when walking down a street with delicatessens, greengrocers, cheese shops and butchers. One knows that one is in a high-income area. I think that a low-income area is known now, colloquially, as a "food desert". There are almost no shops. That can be equally true in rural areas where shops in garages prevail, for which we are thankful. But those shops sell mostly ready meals, confectionery and fresh milk: other fresh food is not available. In many low-income urban areas, we face the same problems. There are no shops that sell fresh food anymore, which is a matter that needs urgently to be addressed. Food planning is not only a matter for the Department of Health but also for the ODPM when it issues planning guidance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also mentioned Sir John Krebs's comments on children's breakfasts and what children were eating as they passed the end of his street. I agree that children's breakfasts, or lack of them, is a matter of concern and I praise those schools which have introduced breakfast clubs. This has proved to be a worthwhile initiative.
	Yesterday, in your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, hosted a worthwhile meeting with representatives of the Food Standards Agency and I was able to raise with them the issue of local initiatives and their funding. I consider breakfasts clubs in schools to be an initiative which is key to introducing children to good eating habits.
	In reply to my question about the funding of local initiatives, the deputy chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Julia Unwin, said that it was at a lamentably low level. If such local initiatives prove worth while but need support, can the Minister say from which pot of money they will receive funding after the one or two years in which they may receive pilot funding? Many initiatives receive pilot funding but, even if they prove extremely worth while, it is difficult to continue with them—and changing the eating habits of children will take a lot longer than a year or two.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the establishment of the Food Standards Agency has been a beacon, but I am not sure whether it has succeeded as well as it would wish to on the issue of labelling. I have looked at its website in this regard and I think what I found there bears repeating to your Lordships. Its website asks:
	"What do labels tell me?"
	The reply is:
	"Labels are there to tell you what you are buying".
	There is no differentiation in the mind of the Food Standards Agency—nor, as far as I can see, in anyone else's—between the packaging on the food which contains the whole marketing message and the nutritional panel, which is what I believe the Food Standards Agency means.
	The website goes on to say:
	"The law says the name of a product must not be misleading".
	That is not the case because we know that the description "chicken pie", for example, is deeply misleading when it contains only 10 or 15 per cent chicken. If you called it "Gloop-pie with a little chicken in it", that would not be misleading. So the Food Standards Agency needs to tighten up its definition of "label". The agency refers to the nutrition panel whereas the public believe that "label" means the entirety of what they see on the food packaging.
	The agency then goes on to ask:
	"What should I look for on labels?".
	Its reply is:
	"Value for money. As well as comparing pack weights, you can use the ingredient list to choose which product you want from the points of view of health, taste and cost".
	I do not believe that that is at all the case. I certainly cannot tell from the label what the taste of a product will be like. I agree that cost is clearly indicated in all shops; it is required to be so by law. But the main point is whether the label gives me a good guide to health. No, it does not; it is too complicated. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken tonight will agree with that. This is an area in which I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance that a much simpler scheme will be introduced.
	Some people have spoken of a red, yellow and green traffic light system, where red is a warning that a food contains high salt, high sugar or high fat levels; yellow is a warning that the food contains a medium level of such ingredients but that if you add it to other food it may result in higher levels in your diet; and green indicates a food that you can eat as much as you like of without any worries.
	Under the sub-heading "Freedom of choice", the website says:
	"Labels allow you to buy things you like or avoid things you shouldn't eat".
	No they do not. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for the points they made.
	My husband is a coeliac, so I can appreciate the problems the noble Lord highlighted. Although a food product will occasionally be labelled as gluten-free, gluten turns up in the most unexpected places. It turns up in mustard, for instance; often labels do not say so, but mustard can contain wheat. Perhaps more insidious is that when coeliacs are stuck for something to eat, they may turn to chips; they think that as they are made from potatoes, they are a very safe food. However, it is not widely known that many chips are actually coated in flour, which causes coeliacs endless difficulties. So we need labelling to be much more accurate.
	Defensive labelling, which says, "This product may contain nuts", is no help to anybody—people need to know whether a product contains nuts or not. The Government urgently need to address labelling which is simply there to avoid prosecution rather than giving information.
	In 2003, the National Consumer Council published the extremely good Bamboozled, Baffled and Bombarded—consumers' views on voluntary food labelling. Since its publication, which contained many good recommendations of which I am sure the Minister is aware, what progress have the Government made in implementing those recommendations?
	The consumer perspective highlighted by the publication is to do with consumer confusion. It defined, very usefully, the different purposes that food packaging serves at present. It serves to offer advice, guidance, claims, data, logo, a brand name, marketing messages, and so on. We need a much clearer definition of what is expected of the food industry when we talk about labelling. We must define the difference between labelling and nutritional information. Nutritional information is divided into two: a short list, which gives the energy, protein, carbohydrates and fats contained in a product, and a long list, which gives the sugar, saturated fats, fibre and sodium content.
	I think that all the requirements in law about labelling on the nutritional panel is now done at an EU level. Part of the Government's job is to lobby at that level for the changes that have been found to be necessary. Of course, the UK is not alone in finding these difficulties. Levels of obesity are rising right across the European Union, so it will need European Union action. It will also need action at a national level. Perhaps there should be a code, such as Defra has for green claims that are false, for inaccurate claims about food.
	The Food Standards Agency survey in March this year found that as well as being misled about ingredients, consumers are being misled about terms such as "fresh", "pure", "natural", "traditional", "original", "authentic", "home-made" and "farmhouse". We are well aware of those sorts of terms. They are on almost every product. They make one feel warm and cosy. They do no one a service. Usually, they are covering up food that is far from those things. The most natural, fresh and traditional foods are those that arrive in their prime state and need very little labelling because they are most clearly a sack of potatoes, a chicken or a bag of Brussels sprouts. However, once those have been processed, the division becomes blurred.
	In the final minute of my speech, I wish to deal with children's eating habits, which the Government can change only through education, education, education. The topic needs to be back on the curriculum in a big way. School meals must be dealt with and health professionals such as GPs and district nurses should be taught about diets at a fundamental level. The issue of diet is vital for the health of our future generation. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell us what the Government are doing to educate the future generation.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will not only be grateful, it will be delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has returned to a theme that has, as he reminded us, come up from time to time throughout his long and distinguished political career. Most of us knew him in another place as the first Minister of the Disabled, a title that now—alas—has become politically incorrect. These days we have Ministers for disabled people and I learnt very early on in my career at the now defunct DHSS that the disabled are people first and disabled second.
	Having—to mix my metaphors—got that red herring off my chest, I recall that the subject of nutrition interested the noble Lord long before he came to your Lordships' House. I agree with almost everything he said, but I cannot agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, that legislation will be of much use, at least in the immediate future. I will come to that point in a minute. I assume that because bad nutrition leads to obesity the noble Lord instigated a short debate on the subject on 8 January last year. Alas, he was unable to take part in a more specific debate on obesity introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in October. However, I suppose that I must say that honours are even on that score because the noble Baroness is not in her place today.
	Among a mass of interesting information, the noble Baroness told us that, in the United Kingdom, obesity has trebled in the past 20 years. Perhaps more relevant to today's debate, she said that more than 10 per cent of 10 year-olds and more than 17 per cent of 15 year-olds are obese. Obesity is defined as when the body mass index—weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared—is more than 30 grams per metre squared. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did not dispute either of those facts. Neither did he say that the body mass index is little understood by anyone outside the medical profession. Even they, I note from yesterday's Evening Standard, are beginning to argue among themselves about whether it is the shape rather than the bulk of the body that causes the problems.
	In both debates the conclusion was that increasing obesity, leading as the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, reminded us, to massive increases in the incidence of diabetes, coronary disease and stroke, is a time bomb waiting to explode.
	The noble Lord, Lord Warner, hoped to convince me on the last occasion that the Government had a strategy to deal with the problem. I am afraid that he failed. What he called a strategy, I would have to call some modest although hopefully effective tinkering round the edges. His noble friend Lord Morris called it "adhocracy". It included the cross-government food and health action plan. The thinking on that is so advanced that only tomorrow is the Secretary of State to launch it department-wide. Considering that the Chief Medical Officer raised the problem of obesity again last year, that we have known about it for at least five years and that the Government have been seven years in office, even the Prime Minister can hardly call that "speedy progress".
	Another part of the strategy is the cross-government activity co-ordination team. The current manifestation of this is the "Summer of Sport" campaign led by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, and welcomed by the Secretary of State for Health. It is all very fine and dandy until one realises that of the £750 million commitment of lottery funds to school and community sport, only £8.5 million has been spent to date.
	Noble Lords have commented on the amount of time children spend on sport. The Government's much vaunted two hours a week of in-school sport is still not universal, I am told. In any case, even if it were available in all schools, is two hours enough? Sweden, with a much lower average body mass index than ours, offers 10 hours. Is that not what we too should be aiming for?
	A salt reduction plan for processed food manufacturers was highlighted by the Minister in the debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Granted, high levels do untold damage to arteries in particular, but what exactly has that to do with obesity? As has been pointed out by all speakers today, of much more relevance is the amount of sugar and fat, but they were to be tackled second. Why? Do the Government have a pecking order of government health priorities? If so, can we be let into the secret as to what principles set it?
	This brings me on to food labelling, currently controlled by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. Although I am a strong believer, and by it a financially rewarded believer, in the single market, it is noticeable that they were allowed by the European Union only because the Commission had no plans at that time to produce a directive on the subject. Now it has started the legislative process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. Unfortunately, since it has started, we cannot change our own legislation unilaterally. It is, quite simply, illegal. All the good ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and other noble Lords are thwarted unless the Government can get a voluntary agreement from the processed food industry.
	Even then, it could cover only home produced or—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe—home packaged or own-label food. No doubt the Minister will claim that the Government have made great strides in persuading the Commission of what is needed. I hope that he will be able to tell us the outcome of what is currently in the draft directive—which has come to a temporary, I hope, grinding halt because the European Parliament cannot discuss it until after the elections next month. Will the Government use their good offices to make sure that it finds a high place on the newly elected parliament's agenda?
	Much as I approve, there could be a problem even with this legislation. America, as the Minister knows, has the strictest food labelling in the world. It also has the highest rate of obesity. Can anyone tell me why? I have asked all over the place for this information but no one seems to be able to produce the answer. Perhaps the Minister, with the resources at his command, can do so. He indicates not and I am not in the least surprised. Perhaps not tonight but at some time.
	My particular bugbear is fat content. Many processed foods now state "90 per cent fat free". How wonderful. Claims like that should be banned. They are, in essence, stating a negative. What they should state is, "Contains 10 per cent fat". That would be much more useful to the consumer. Still, it is a heck of a lot when you consider that fat, whatever it is, will inevitably be only part of an individual's diet. It is the total diet, unmatched by physical activity, that leads to obesity at any age. Bluntly, if calories in equal calories out, there is no problem. More and more people are not using up calories, so more and more people are becoming obese. It is calories that count, not the amount of food. Going to school on a bowl of porridge is far better for your children than going to school on a Mars bar—sugar being just as damaging as fat.
	When I am in London I live near a large comprehensive school surrounded by an absolute plethora of corner shops where I buy my newspaper in the morning. I have observed over the years how much their takings are increased in term time by children buying fizzy drinks, crisps and chocolate bars. As an admitted chocoholic myself I can sympathise with these children. However, how can a responsible parent possibly control a child's intake of calories when they do not know what their children are eating away from home? I cannot imagine that the only solution that I can come up with—reducing their pocket money—would do much for family relations.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, what about schools? Are they teaching responsible food consumption in the same way as children have sex lessons? I doubt it, but I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me in his usual way if I am wrong.
	Your Lordships may have been surprised by my mention of sex lessons in a debate such as this—as I have to say I was by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on nuts, and indeed by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I believe that on this the food industry can be congratulated. The most amazing products say, "may contain nuts". "May" contain nuts is a far better warning if one is allergic to nuts than "does" or "does not". Sooner or later something will slip in—an oil will have been used previously in cooking and the pan will not have been washed out properly—and the nuts will arrive in the wrong food. So I totally disagree with the noble Baroness; I praise the food industry for saying "may contain nuts".
	However, back to sex—there is a logic. It seems to me that we have a very good template in how to tackle obesity in children. I became a junior health Minister in the mid-1980s, just after my noble friend Lord Fowler had devised a strategy for combating AIDS. Your Lordships will remember that exactly the same sort of warnings about sexually transmitted diseases were given then as there are about obesity today. Three things were done. First, an enormous amount was spent on public sector broadcasting. Secondly, sex lessons in schools were given an impetus to cover the subject. Thirdly, the private sector became involved. Your Lordships will remember that Richard Branson developed Mates condoms and the Government made sure that mention of condoms became acceptable. The net result was a gradual decline in the incidence of AIDS.
	There is no reason why the same should not happen now: nutrition lessons in schools for every child regardless of sex; physical training—or PE, as I believe it is now called—as well as games in school, whether in an indoor playing area or on the playing fields, which, alas, as noble Lords have said, are declining, especially in our state schools; a greatly increased amount of public sector broadcasting on the subject; and, lastly, the involvement of the private sector.
	I heard the other day of a local authority that had issued all the children in school with pedometers. Locals said it was throwing bad money after good. Not so. The whingers did not take account of the fact that children are distinctly competitive animals. "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" took on a totally new meaning. The children started walking, jumping, skipping and playing games. The point is that today's school children are tomorrow's workforce. Cannot local firms be persuaded to adopt local schools and give the children pedometers?
	These three things need drive and persuasion and someone must be in charge. Ministers have too many other things to do, as indeed does the Chief Medical Officer and his staff. The Government believe in health tsars—but they are isolated in the Department of Health. My party has a policy of having an interdepartmental equivalent, not just for obesity but for public health as a whole. We call him or her the public health commissioner. There is not even a smell of a similar idea from the Government; perhaps there will be tonight.
	The Opposition cannot compel the Government to do anything. Their Back-Benchers are arguably in a slightly stronger position, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out—especially so when, as there have been tonight, there are four of them prodding the Minister from all sides and behind. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, by securing tonight's debate, is doing this country and his own Government a service. If only they would sit up and take notice. If they will not, my advice to him and to other noble Lords opposite is for goodness' sake to keep on prodding, because I am happy to join them any day of the week.

Lord Warner: My lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue of misleading food labelling and what we might do to promote healthy eating, especially in children. It gives me the opportunity to outline the considerable programme of work that the Government have engaged in. I shall have to bear with fortitude the fact that I shall never satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I shall resist the temptation to enter into the area of sex or the US Government's responsibilities in relation to obesity in their country.
	I should begin by emphasising that consumers have the right to clear and accurate food labels. That is the basis of the Government's labelling policy and is becoming increasingly important in today's changing world. The range of products on the supermarket shelves is expanding, while the time we spend choosing what to buy is decreasing. I would agree with a number of remarks made by my noble friends that the Co-operative Group has a history of leading the retail industry in terms of food labelling. I am more than happy to recognise its progressive approach in providing vital information to consumers.
	Food labels can help us to make informed decisions about the food we eat, particularly in relation to a healthy diet. However, they can help consumers only if the information is provided in a way which the consumer can easily understand, which is not confusing and, above all, not misleading. To help ensure that consumers have access to the labelling information they need, the Food Standards Agency has in place a wide-ranging food labelling action plan, which picks up many of the recommendation of the Consumers' Association report mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. The plan comprises a mixture of regulatory and voluntary initiatives to tackle the issues that consumers have identified as priorities.
	Among the agency's main achievements have been to secure an extension to the European rules on ingredient listing, which will require more detailed information on the content of packaged foods. The new rules will ensure, for example, that the presence of allergens is more clearly indicated. The new legislation on improved labelling of allergens includes nuts and nut products in foods. It will come into force in November 2004 and will make compulsory the breakdown of compound ingredients. The agency has an extensive research programme on allergens and is currently planning a campaign to improve the provision of allergen information in catering establishments.
	I cannot answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the relationship between nut allergies and gene deficiencies, but I shall look into it and write to her.
	I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Food Standards Agency has also published a range of best practice advice to promote labelling transparency. That includes advice on the use of terms such as "fresh", "traditional", "home-made" and so on, as well as advice on country-of-origin labelling. The agency is also in the process of consolidating the UK food labelling regulations to take account of the many national and European changes that have taken place since they were put in place.
	We recognise that food labelling has a role to play in enabling consumers to make healthier choices. Currently nutrition labelling on foods is mandatory only when a nutrition claim such as low fat is made. However, according to Food Standards Agency research, more than 90 per cent of consumers think it important to have nutritional information on food products. The Government therefore recommend that such information be provided and, in practice, most pre-packaged foods carry at least some nutrition information because manufacturers choose to make voluntary declarations.
	A proposal to amend the current legislation is expected soon. In a discussion paper, the European Commission suggests compulsory nutrition labelling on all pre-packaged foods, to include levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in the product. Certainly, research by the Food Standards Agency has shown that many consumers find that the current format is difficult to use and that a nutrition labelling format showing the content of a nutrient as high, medium, or low would be welcomed by consumers and help them to make healthier choices.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other noble Lords raised the issue of why action has been taken on salt reduction, in advance of other substances—I correct myself, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who asked the question. Action on salt reduction was taken as a priority following action by the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health following publication of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's Salt and Health report in May 2003. That confirmed the strengthening of evidence for action to reduce adult salt intake and for the first time recommended reduced intake levels for children.
	It has been suggested that signposting on products, such as a traffic light system, would help consumers quickly identify those foods which are high in fat, salt or sugar and those which are healthier choices. The Food Standards Agency believes that such signposting could be useful and is planning to fund research in this area.
	Nutrition and health claims are increasingly common on foods, reflecting the growing public recognition of the importance of the diet to overall health. At present, the general requirements of UK food law, laid down by the Food Safety Act 1990, prohibit misleading claims. However a proposal to regulate nutrition and health claims more closely is currently being discussed in Europe. Simple rules will be set for nutrition claims such as low fat and reduced salt with specific criteria laid down for when these terms can be used. This would see an end to the labelling of products as, for example, 90 per cent fat-free. This type of labelling can mislead by implying that a product is low fat when it is not, as my noble friend Lord Morris pointed out.
	For health claims the basic proposal is that these would be allowed following an independent assessment of the supporting evidence by the European Food Safety Authority. Hence if a label said that the product helps maintain a healthy heart then the consumer could have confidence that such a claim is true.
	A concern with the use of both nutrition and health claims is the potential to mislead the consumer or undermine healthy eating advice. Such claims emphasise the positive aspects of a food, yet often there may be a negative side that is given less emphasis. For example, a low fat claim on a product high in salt may proclaim only the fat content. The new proposal aims to deal with this by introducing the concept of nutrition profiling where the underlying principle is that claims should not be allowed on products containing defined levels of fat, salt or sugar.
	Of course, there are many more aspects to healthy eating than food labelling, and the Government have a wide range of initiatives aimed at promoting healthy eating and increasing the physical activity levels of the population. The prevention of obesity is integral to our public health activities because, as a number of noble Lords have said, obesity has trebled in England in the past 20 years with one in five adults now obese; that is almost 8 million people. Children deserve special attention, as a number of noble Lords have said, because obesity is a problem that requires prevention in childhood. The 2002 health survey for England, quoted by the Chief Medical Officer in his most recent annual report, found that 16 per cent of children were already obese, and that almost a third were either overweight or obese.
	The prevention and management of obesity is at the heart of many of the Government's priority areas. The National Service Frameworks outlining action on coronary heart disease and diabetes emphasise preventing and reducing obesity as a key intervention to reduce the overall prevalence of diabetes. Long term prevention is the best course of action, especially in children. The forthcoming National Service Framework for Children will also be addressing obesity as a priority for children's health.
	There is a range of actions under way to improve diet and physical activity. I refer to the promotion of breastfeeding and encouraging more women to breastfeed and to continue for at least six months. Breastfeeding in England and Wales increased from 68 per cent in 1995 to 71 per cent in 2000 and there was a significant increase of 9 percentage points in lower social classes.
	The new welfare food scheme provides milk and free vitamins to 800,000 low-income families. The reformed scheme will ensure that children in poverty have access to a healthy diet helping them to buy a range of foods, including milk, infant formula, fresh fruit and vegetables. The "five a day" programme, including the national school fruit scheme, aims to increase access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables. Local five a day pilot initiatives were found to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables among the lowest consumers by about one portion a day. A five a day logo has been developed as part of the communications programme to help people recognise the five a day message and introduce consistency in the message in all settings.
	In addition, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Education and Skills are working together to provide information on diet and nutrition to school children through a number of school based initiatives. This work includes: the funding of a cooking bus that visits schools to promote practical skills among children and their teachers; projects to identify the food-related skills for 14 to 16 year-olds to be covered by the curriculum; showing how schools can operate healthier vending machines that are economically viable; and providing free fruit in schools.
	The Department of Health strand of the Government's food in schools programme is made up of eight pilot projects which follow the child through the school day—healthier breakfast clubs, tuck shops, vending machines, lunch boxes and cookery clubs, as well as water provision, growing clubs and the dining room environment. These are outside of, but complement, the formal curriculum.
	The Food Standards Agency's activities in this area include leading the cross-government consideration of minimum food and nutrition knowledge and skills of young people, working with the Department for Education and Skills on monitoring school meals standards; and piloting healthier drinks vending in schools.
	Central government initiatives demonstrate and test innovation but, when the ideas are provided, I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that putting them into effect is largely down to the local ownership and responsibility of the local agencies.
	The Food Standards Agency also encourages the provision of healthier options when eating out—this is important as this sector is increasing—by, for example, contributing to the training of caterers in key nutrition messages.
	The Food Standards Agency has also recently been considering the issue of the many ways in which foods are promoted to children. To inform its work on this issue, the agency commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on food promotions and children's diet, carried out by Professor Gerard Hastings from Strathclyde University. The review concludes that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchasing behaviour and consumption, and that the influence on children's choices is apparent not only between different brands but also between different categories of foods.
	The review has not been without its critics and some have challenged its findings. However, the review has undergone, and withstood, a significant amount of independent scrutiny, and its conclusions stand. Following on from the Hastings review and other agency work, the Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on a draft action plan on food promotions and children's diet. The action plan contains a number of recommendations addressed to government, schools, industry and others.
	The principle underlying the plan is that it is time to move from debating the issue to determining solutions. This point has been emphasised by much of what has been said in this debate.
	As my noble friend said in his opening remarks, one government department cannot tackle obesity on its own. Effective prevention and management requires an integrated, cross-government approach, working with a range of partners on programmes to tackle obesity, improve diet and increase physical activity. The Government recognise that in order to achieve their long-term goals they must also create partnerships.
	I remind my noble friends and other noble Lords who have raised the subject of sport and physical activity that the Government's document, Game Plan, set out ideas for driving up physical activity and sports participation from 32 per cent to 70 per cent of the population by 2020.
	Earlier this year, Derek Wanless published his report Securing good health for the whole population, which focused on the need to prevent ill health. It contained a powerful analysis of the wider determinants of health including inactivity, diet and nutrition and the significant impact of economic inequalities on people's health.
	That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has launched the "Choosing health?" consultation exercise which will inform the production of the public health White Paper by the summer. The consultation period began at the beginning of March and will run through to the end of May, culminating in publication of the White Paper in the summer. It is looking at the key areas of public health including diet and nutrition, physical activity, obesity.
	As part of the three-month consultation on the public health White Paper a conference is also being held tomorrow—"Choosing health: achieving a balance between diet and exercise". I can reassure my noble friend Lord Morris that there is nothing sinister in the postponement of the Department of Health food and health action plan. He will not have to wait much longer and there is certainly a positive flurry of government action; for example, only last week the Chief Medical Officer also launched his report on physical activity, At least five a week. This provides the evidence of impact of physical activity and its relationship to health.
	The Government are committed to making a real difference to the health of the population by tackling obesity through improving diet and nutrition and by greater emphasis on exercise. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.